Do you believe in the biblical flood in the days of Noah?
Do you believe in the biblical flood in the days of Noah? it was recorded as a cataclysmic earth-covering flood, and mentions waters flowing from the deep, (out of the earth, as well as all the water previously being held in a cloud canopy over the earth falling as the first rain on the earth). It claims the earth inhabitants lived a longer life span prior to this time. Do you accept that all of our ancestry dates back to this man Noah, and then back another 1200 approx. years to Adam and Eve? Do you believe there is a real wooden Ark still sitting in the mountains of Ararat, as proof of this fantastic voyage to save the world?
I believe there was some kind of flood as it is recorded in several texts...
A flood as described in the bible with the corresponding arc... not a chance.While its hard to believe there was enough water to cover the entire earth, I've read that the constant turmoil kept the waters pushed up to the tops of the mountains. scientists suggest today that it would be almost cataclysmic if the ocean water level was to rise even one foot world wide. large portions of several continents woould be covered. Science and Blible alike show us there are principles and laws that keep the waters of the earth in control. Ie. in the clouds ( meteorology) in the glaciers, (geology) and in the internal earth, (Hydrology) ; all of these are effected by gravity, earth and atmospheric temperatures earth rotation and lunar pull draws and holds the precipitation in the skies. Its not hard for me to believe that if all these forces relaxed for even a short time period, drastic results would occur. --- one thing that comes to mind is that as a teenager, I found that modern science has discovered proof that the sun stood still for one day ( recorded in bible, where God caused the sun to stay still for Elijah the prophet. so its not so hard for me to believe otherwise hard to believe claims such as the flood, creation etc.
Are you serious? You do realize that the sun does not go around the earth at all and is always "standing still" at all times?
I can't imagine where you got the "science" that the sun stood still for a day but it wasn't from any scientist, science class or science teacher.wilderness, is it possible then that the "earth" stood still for a day? I do believe it is in scientific history.. I'm not sure how to go back and research now, but I'm willing to try..
No. To stop the earth's rotation would result in tsunamis and winds that would scour the earth's surface of all topsoil, let alone life. Water and air are "liquids" in that they both move over the surface. They are rotating at about 1,000 miles per hour; stopping the earth's surface (moving at the same rate) doesn't stop either water or wind.
Conservation of angular momentum also requires that it not stop, as well as not re-starting if it did stop. There is no way to get it spinning again short of a blow (asteroid, perhaps?) big enough to once again destroy everything on the surface. The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to what was necessary.
Nor is there any record anywhere, verbal or written, of a 24 hour long night. Remember, if the earth stops, half of it goes dark.
Recently I had a chance for a good laugh when a woman shared a story with us.. She said " my husband Joe, as a missionary goes back and forth to a place where they still have a tribal leader. He was with the chief of the village and they were out walking at night and they were next to the ocean but looking up at the full moon.. he said to the chief, just think; We have made much progress; we have two explorers up there right now! The Old chief looks over at him, and says,, Joe you've been coming here time after time, and I have tried to believe you, and the things you have taught me.. but this time its unbelieveable! You tell me we have humans up on the moon? Why, anybody can look up there with their own eyes and see there isn't room for even one man to stand on it!
Sorry, but that is a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.aspI woke up this morning; no one can objectively deny that I woke up; but if someone wanted, they could deny that I did. Tomorrow perhaps the only proof that I woke up today will be that I am alive tomorrow. and not less proof is that I am writing this.
I am not currently following the life of Christopher Columbus, but I understand from some recent articles that his life and exploits are being redefined and he is no less than a despicable marauder that used the Spanish crown to fund his journeys.. yet he was held as a traditional hero to the American dream say 30 years ago. Now the advent of American conquered peoples are pouncing back to claim he was a despot. do you think politics and professors play a role in what is written in textbooks? I do.
At least unless you disprove the existence of Jesus, and his Mother, Mary, then you still have to deal with that there WAS a man named Noah, and you cannot disprove that HE trusted God and lived his life as he spoke it. (not as we speak of it now.). His life is recorded in Marys geneology. His claim was that many scoffed and disregarded that God would send a judgement at the end of the Ark building project. According to his descendents and historical accounts, those people did not get on the Ark of safety provided for them.
A proof of the exodus of Egypt was that God gave them a living proof. they were to practice the "passover" every year afterwards as a "living" proof that it occured. they still do today. I have thought about this. it is amazing.
There is both historical and living proof of the holocaust, yet some already have scoffed that it didn't happen. (please don't tell that to the German peasants! Germany was gutted and diplayed to the world as murderous people, against the will of the people.) I personally do not blame the entire German people for the atrocities that occured. I blame the evil men that controlled and dictated within the government at that relatively recent time period.
There were asteroids, and shooting stars in the skies last night. I looked but I did not see the display. There were clouds in the way. Should I disbelieve that it happened? that the Geminid showers were a hoax? I choose to believe, and there are living proofs that they did happen. Society has its own living proofs. but only of what we have witnessed. We only have theories and speculation of what happened in the past. but we cannot deny any civilization thier own living proof's.
There are evidences of Dinosaurs and humans walking and living together, yet some of the sciences disagree that they were even in the same period of time. Since I was a kid, they have changed the supposed time of existence from 55 million years ago, to 30 and even now to 15 and then 6 million years ago. But yet, in at least two places in existence today, they have proof of man and dinosaur tracks being made the same exact day. Glen Rose Texas, and at least one other site..
I believe Noah existed. Ignorance is not an excuse to disbelieve in something. I also beleive that Peter the Great, of european history was real. I beleive other great, but more primitive civilizations existed, such as the Vikings, and others. Before the advent of modern communications, entire continents survived without knowledge of each other. I dare say we have only barely caught up with connecting the races.. much less all the sciences, and historilogical proofs.It would appear you hold a lot of irrational beliefs that seem to cause you to create logical fallacies and accept nonsense, and then claim science said it was so. I think no one could care less you hold those beliefs, but to state science supports them is dishonest.
I do beleive science is able to produce truth, though many conclusions and experiments have been later proven false, truth remains. does it not?
I do not assign man the honor of creating science, only of explaining science and experiments. I give him credit for inventions, and for making the world a better place through using the sciences.Such as?
And yet, men did create the process of science and experiments, despite your denial. That is a fact.Then you should readily concur that there was a first man and a first woman. that there was a first book, and a first child. that there was a first rain and a first cup of tea. All I am saying in this forum is that Man has a purpose for being here, and I simply asked "do you beleive a certain story of mans existence."
Truth is truth. it remains intact whatever we choose to beleive or disbelieve of it. I beleive science goes hand in hand with the story of creation, in answer to your question. Science does not disprove the existence of God, and God does not disprove the existence of science. someone created the laws of science. ( not man, either.) that would be the height of stupidity to think that. we might have put our rope around it, but that is all.
Man has only merely (but wonderfully) DISCOVERED the laws of science..
We agree - man discovered the laws of science.
Now, what evidence can you provide that someONE invented them? That they did not come about naturally, without supernatural intervention, when the universe was formed?
Unfortunately, that is not a truth.
Yes, men created the laws of science based on the effects of those laws on nature in order to understand them. It would be the height of stupidity to suggest gods had anything to do with it.
No, I do not concur, sorry.
And, that purpose is ?
_____________________________________
Its dishonest to say there was no Noahs ark, and no Flood, when all the evidence is not in yet.. Its dishonest to say there was a big bang and THATS where we came from when the evidence is not there. You haven't found THAT ark either. You have only developed theories that we came from a miraculous explosion, or spontaneous series of events.. ---one of the arguments against that theory is that we each have a separate and distinct DNA. God says in his word that there is a distinction between man and animal creatures. that we have a living soul. Sad that some live life without discovering that they have one..nonsense - it's MUCH more dishonest to claim such silly things when there is NO evidence for them - using the bible to prove the bible doesnt count. what other evidence do you have for these claims?
Okay, prove that we have a soul, define what that soul is, and how it separates us from all of the other animals.
soul noun \ˈsōl\
Definition of SOUL
1: the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life
2a : the spiritual principle embodied in human beings, all rational and spiritual beings, or the universe b capitalized Christian Science : god 1b
3: a person's total self
4a : an active or essential part b : a moving spirit : leader
5a : the moral and emotional nature of human beings b : the quality that arouses emotion and sentiment c : spiritual or moral force : fervor
6: person <not a soul in sight>
Mirriam Webster...
BY THE WAY>> its in all dictionaries and encyclopedias.
_____________________________________________________soul |sōl|
noun
1 the spiritual or immaterial part of a human being or animal, regarded as immortal.
Clearly your dictionary is not the same as mine. Please don't pretend otherwise.I get what the bible says a soul is, but not everyone has the same definition.
Now how do you prove that the "soul" exists, and what is it about a "soul" that separates us from animals?Oh look, unicorn is in the dictionary, too. They must be real...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unicornmy purple pet dragon has a pet unicorn who is ridden by a leprechaun. Doesn't yours? I thought they were common accessories.
Mine must be one of the older models, it came with a Sasquatch in full Spartan battle armor riding atop.
Whether I believe Jesus, Mary or even Noah existed is immaterial. It has nothing to do with whether I believe that physically impossible things, things that violate the laws of nature, happened.
As you point out yourself, Columbus may not have been the hero we have portrayed him as. The details of his life are not readily apparent, yet they are recorded far better than details of any of the three biblical characters. The tales attributed to Columbus are physically possible, the tales of what Jesus did or what happened to Noah are not.
That you choose to equate the two is not to your credit, and neither is believing or repeating "science" facts that never, ever came from a scientist.With any and all due respect to the sciences. you suggest that we could record and keep records of columbus, but not of earlier civilizations? as great as you believe the sciences are? see that is unexplicable reasoning. we are able to read a rock, but not a textbook,. or a scroll, or a drawing, or a hieroglyphic.
Whether we could has nothing to do with whether we actually DID keep those records. We DID keep records of where Columbus was (supposedly) going; we did NOT keep records of Noah's travels and problems with his ark. We didn't even keep records that he built an ark - the closest we can come is a single story of physically impossible events written by people long after the fact.
Other people followed Columbus, corroborating his story to a large degree. No one has ever found a shred of evidence of a world wide flood, let alone that Noah collected samples of every animal on earth and cared for them for several months aboard a small boat.
Today, we see the evidence of Columbus's visit to the Americas, but we see no evidence of Noah's ark. What we DO see is very strong evidence that the details of the ark myth are impossible; that they cannot happen.I have read substantiated and well recorded documnents of the exact dimensions, primitive blueprints, instrucion of waterproofing and even the structural hardware built for the ark.. bolsters built with primitive metals. -I have read and seen well recorded documents of the exact measurements of religious furniture of the Isrealites used in the first portable tabernacle used in the wilderness. all so real and exact you could build nad reproduce today. and the documents are age specific to the era they are written about. they are mostly held in the antiquities museum of Israel. the living torah is an ancient and beleivable manuscript that is still in existence. agian, you must accept recorded history.
I have studied, though briefly even the writing of the chinese, and the "story in the letters" of the chinese language tell a story.. you want to know what it is? the creation of man. do you not believe that science requires multiple accounts of consistency? I am proven, both by the sciences and and by history and of something that could never have been evoluted. a heart. some will never realize the miracle of the heart.Sorry, but we do understand the heart evolved and is not a divine miracle.
If you've seen blueprints for the ark, you're the only one on earth who has. We don't even know for sure what a "cubit" is, for goodness sake! I'm sorry, but such claims do nothing for your credibility.
We've already discussed accepting recorded history as factual; as you pointed out it is altogether too true that records very often do not agree with the reality of history (Columbus). History is written by people, and people have a rather irritating habit of inserting their own prejudices into what they write.
The chinese undoubtedly have a creation myth - few cultures don't - but it doesn't agree with Adam and Eve. Neither does any of the other thousands of such myths, so where is this consistency you speak of?If I understand your statement, you have proven that a heart cannot evolve. This is something that sounds interesting; can you provide the list of (repeatable) experiments that you (or someone else) did that shows this?
Or, if actual experiments are not available, at least a rigid mathematical analysis of the statistical probabilities proving that genetic mutations cannot occur that can result in a heart? That the probability over millions of generations of developing a heart is zero?no, gentlemen, I acquiesce. .. I am jsut thankful that you recognize the existence of this heart andits ability to have emotion, and all that goes with that..whatever it is. thank you. I like you..
I am quite happy with the studies already done on the heart and its functions, on its complexity, and its being the most amazing part of the human. I stand on that one. I am costantly intrigued by what has already been discovered ..
You have a good day - it's been interesting.
A last word - although I won't agree the muscles of the heart produce any emotion, it is still there and it is the season for emotion. Have a good Christmas if we don't meet again before then.
Humans and dinosaurs coexisted? Please. That's possibly one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Did you get that from the asinine creation museum that has been debunked even by other Christians?
what scientific evidence is there for the earth stopping?
the bible is ignorant of scientific laws - from gravity to evolution - not surprising, since all humanity was equally ignorant - but some of us have progressed since themExcuse me... Evolution is not scientific... its an unproven theory... its a myth... a magic...
evolution isn't "just a theory" Sorry. It is scientific, it's tested, proven and peer reviewed, and they can observe it in a laboratory. What science have you been studying?
Tested? Since when? To claim it as a fact it should pass first the scientific method... And to pass the scientific method there should be an observer... I hope you know this though...
are you confusing evolution with the origin of life?
Evolution:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development.
2.
a. The process of developing.
b. Gradual development.
3. Biology
a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
b. The historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny.
4. A movement that is part of a set of ordered movements.
5. Mathematics The extraction of a root of a quantity.
Evolution is tested all of the time. Have you ever looked any of it up?ROTFL... end of the argument hehehe... your reply was very scientific...
okay....just a definition. Not sure if you're being serious or just trying to mock me - and failing.
I cannot contain myself from laughing... Sorry though...
Then show me proofs that evolution is tested and proven as what you claim, but I am sure you will never find any. Showing a copy-paste definition is actually a form of escaping...
Please don't belittle my knowledge in science hehehe for I know the difference between facts and fallacies and between Laws and Theories...the major reason for cut n paste is that there havent been any new arguments FOR creationism for decades, so it wears out our fingers repeating the same information that creationists just cant understand [or refuse to acknowledge] that's why i wrote a hub on the 10 major lies of creationism - so far no arguments against evolution have been presented here that aren't already covered in that hub
Steve, I could not find the hub you refer to listed in the content on your profile page, or in a search of the heading given. I went through 20 pages of results, but didn't find it. Could you please provide a link?
you havent displayed that knowledge here -- please explain the difference between the theory and the law of gravity and of evolution
As if you are very bright, intelligent and knowledgeable... You do not even know the meaning of the word, "facts."
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconc … html#proof
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.biodesign.asu.edu/news/study … -fertility
http://evostudies.org/evos-journal/
If you want a podcast from someone who has actually studied evolution, check this one out:
http://www.spreaker.com/user/smalleyand … _explained
You do know that the use of the word "theory" in the scientific realm is a lot different than the layman's use of the word theory, right?Don't escape from here... Where are the proofs go show 'em..
i just provided you with several links, and an in-depth podcast that directly contradicts your claims about evolution. Instead of looking into it, however, you're just going to sit there and mock the person that actually took the time to do what you asked.
Typical. You don't actually want to be pointed to any evidence that contradicts your beliefs, and you don't care if your claims are true. You just want to mock the people that know more than you do.boring! you've been given more than enough references if you're seriously interested in a discussion.
the 'its just a theory' canard is one of the first topics of my 'creationist distortions' hub.
Your magical evolution theory must able to pass the "scientific method," in order for it to be considered a fact...
Laws are facts since they are tested and proven... Gravity is a fact and Isaac Newton established this...
The word FACTS has something to do with the things that are observable.... Can you observe your Evolution Theory for billions of years?
You said it is tested and proven, well in fact it isn't. Your evolution thing will never hurdle the Scientific Method.
We're still at scientific method and don't escape way too early...why do you keep claiming that I'm trying to "escape"? I may not be responding as quickly as you'd like - but I'm not bound by your expectations, and I DO have a life.
You get that gravity is a law and a theory, right? Did gravity exist before Newton came up with the theory? Yep.
Evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of life - I've demonstrated that multiple times, but you seem to ignore it - just like you've ignored all the resources I've pointed you to. Evolution has undergone the scientific method, and it has held up. I'm sorry that you don't like it, but your personal taste has nothing to do with science. Evolution IS a fact, and I don't really care if you like it or not. Your personal beliefs don't dictate reality, and I, for one, am thankful for that much at least.
What are YOUR qualifications to dismiss the work of actual scientists? If you could disprove evolution, you would have a Nobel prize. Can I see it? where are your peer-reviewed journals? Where are your published works in scientific journals?
There are no proofs as expected... So please do not associate the word tested and proven with your imaginary evolution theory...
I just can't take you seriously - you act like a troll.
Of course, he claims science books are "magical" and refuses to read them, then calls evolution "imaginary" even though he hasn't read anything about it, because it's science, therefore magical.
Wrong again... to say that origin of life and evolution are different from each other is again a fallacy... Are you okay nyahahahaha...
You keep on making mistakes one after the other...
In your copy-paste definition, the origin of life is a perfect fit to it too... Therefore, origin of life is part of the evolution theory...
@Mark - "Real Science" is scientific... it will teach you the difference between space and vacuum nyahahahahaha...
That the evolution theory is the related with the origin of life.
That facts are tested and proven...
And of course will not present the bogus Archeopteryx on its contents...No, not really. They are related in that they both deal with origins, but to call abiogenesis a "subset" of evolution is a misunderstanding of both theories.
Evolution, broadly speaking, is the descent with modification of all species from a common ancestor by means of natural selection.
Abiogenesis refers to the natural processes leading up to the last common ancestor, which according to current hypotheses was a gene-swapping free-for-all. The concepts of species and selection as we know them from the theory of evolution really don't become relevant until after the last common ancestor emerges.
So, no. Evolution and origin of life are not the same, and one is not a subset of the other.Yeah I stand corrected... And I like your reply "They are related in that they both deal with origins."
Thanks...
Talking of sets... one is not a subset of the other... is correct...No, not really. Evolution in its broadest sense is a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.So even abiogenesis is evolution.
If we dumb down the definition of evolution to "change over time," sure. But if we are talking about the theories, they are not the same.
What is life, if not a complex chemical reaction?
Consider the simplest living organisms, prions and viruses. we are not sure whether to classify them as as living things or chemicals. These complex chemicals are formed from simpler chemicals. When it became more complex, we call that prokaryots, then eukaryots....., which later divulged to form different complex chemicals. And isn't this process we call evolution and the explanation of the process, the theory of evolution.Also evolution does n0t make animals "better" or more "complex"--it just selects trait that suit the environment. This can including being simpler--such as the loss of eyes in cave fish.
'Better' and 'complex' are relative and subjective terms. For Us human beings a simple molecule made of carbon nitrogen and oxygen gaining the properties of self replication is "becoming more complex/better.
Evolution is just a change, a step by step change where all the steps are important, but there is no difference between life and non-life.Better perhaps, but "complex" is pretty objective.
first, evolution does no require or predict any progression to giher, more complex forms - often it occurs, but some organisms remain much as they were millions of years ago
evolution cannot occur until there is life, so abiogensis is a precursor to evolutionThe change of form is evolution, whether it is from inanimate to animate or between animate. If some species haven't changed for millions of years then they have not evolved for millions of years, whatever evolution took place, took place before that. I used a dictionary definition, I should have used 'change of form' instead of progression to higher form. Life is no different from inanimate except it is its own catalyst.
- you're NOT excused -- no matter how many times you may type it, it doesn't change the FACT of evolution. if you actually have any evidence against evolution, please present it, but my psychic powers tell me you'll either trot out the same dead horses creationists love to beat, or more likely you'll fail to reply at all
In your wonderful world...
>>>There is no missing link and there are no fossils or evidences that will link humans with apes.
>>>There are no fossils and evidences that a certain specie of animal evolved into another specie.
>>>There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible. Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom. ---abovetopsecret.com
>>>The archeopteryx shown by evolutionists before is bogus after all. Unfortunately, this hoax is still present in many Biology books that are published worldwide...
>>>The origin of life started from a single-celled being, ridiculous... The most modern laboratory was unable to create a living cell. In fact, scientists have been unable to create a single left-hand protein molecule as found in all animals. ---abovetopsecret.com
>>>Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. ---abovetopsecret.com
>>> How about symbiosis? When one living thing needs another different living thing to survive, it's called a symbiotic relationship.
A good example of this is the relationship between bees and flowers. The bees need the nectar from some types of flowers to feed while these flowers need bees to pollinate them. Both depend on each other to exist and survive. The question for evolutionists is: How did these plants exist without the bees, and how did the bees exist without these plants? --- http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut … out-bible/
>>>Evolutionist cannot answer the age-old question, Which came first the eggs or the chicken?
An egg comes from a chicken, yet the chicken comes from an egg. How can there be one without the other?
To complicate matters even more, the chicken has to come from a fertilized egg that has the mixture of two different genetic strains from both its parents. So the problem of the origin of life and initial reproduction is still a mystery that evolutionary science cannot adequately answer.
Yet for someone who believes in special creation by a Creator, there is no dilemma here. First God made the male and female chickens, which produced the first fertilized egg—and the rest is history. --- http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolut … out-bible/you just keep digging yourself a deeper hole -- every one of your mistakes is explained in the references given above
now you're just copying material wholesale from creationist sites -- not just the one that you do mention -- it didnt take me long to find most of your other alleged 'problems' online, word for word
try reading a real science book rather than just regurgitating the tripe that creationist sites spewThese are irrefutable... you cannot twist facts and the evidences around us...
It's you who is in the hole now... I wonder if you can still get out...
BTW, I will not bother to read your magical "science books," I might just get upset if will see a bogus archeopteryx there...
Why do you believe in God? For that matter, why the Christian God? You do realize that if you were born in Saudi Arabia you would worship Allah, right? So why is the religion of your people so much more credible and worthy of worship than any of the other religion now, or that came before it. Nearly every religion makes impossible claims, but yet, I 'm sure the God you believe in is all too real.
"Magical Science" Sorry buddy, that is not the way it works. Science is methodical and ever changing. Maybe, you should ask yourself why you believe there is a magic invisible man in the sky who loves you. I bet these beliefs aren't based on concrete evidence and change with new found information as science does. Actually, I bet you, and many others simply believe in impossibilites such as God becasue your family and community embraced God as real and good.
There probably was a huge flood... I would guess that it was around the end of the last ice age when all the ice was melting... say 10 or 12 thousand years back. To someone back then I would also say that it probably looked as if the entire world was flooded since their entire world probably encompassed no more than 50 square miles. Stories of that flood would have been passed on by word of mouth for many generations, with each generation adding some drama to it for one reason or another, until a written language came along and made it harder for the story to change. There probably was an arc as well but the addition of the mated animals was just some drama to add to the story...
thanks richard. I lived in Alaska and I know they have records of an ice bridge acroos the continents, and I know there are fish bones etc, historical findings of archeology that they ascribe to a world flood. some of the animals and species found a the tops of mountains that shouldn't be there naturally. there is no doubt as to there having been a huge flood. Science seems to want to fight against biblical stories, in order to prove evolution, but that being said, for instance.. in England jsut a few hundred years ago, they claim there was fire breathing dragons. whereas I can't put the date on anything any more than you can; there is existing in South America lizards that have the ability to kill insects with a tiny spark, ( flame) , put that together with Birmancandys remark about people having lived 905 years( Noah) and the natural known fact that some species such as the lizards and I thnk alligators, and the komoda? dragon; these continue to grow as long as they are alive and providing it was the canopy effect of the atmospere that kept humans alive longer, then it would have kept animals alive .. Imagine if a lizard grew to 900 years! incidentally they have the same scale and body shape as the pictures of yesteryear's Dragons). the bible mentions behemoths. they regularly find woolly mammoths and mastadon bones in the mountains and in the shores of Alaska.. I have lived where they have found these bones washing out of the glacial moraines as the ocean water erode them away.. not to mention what they find locked into the glaciers for years and years.
yes, that ice bridge was more than TEN THOUSAND YEARS AGO -- well before any claims for noah. amzing how many inaccuracies, mistatements and falsehopods you can cram in 1 paragraph!
the reason there are fossils on mountains is that MILLIONS of years ago those were seabeds and they've been thrust to those hight by tectonic plate activity
science doesnt fight the bile - the bible is irrelevant to science. it's funndamentalists who deny the reality of the world if it disagrees with their holy book
claims of dragons are not PROOF or evidence of such
some animals do continue to grow, but they ALL have lifespans well short of 250 years, most never make it to 100
humans have never lived for 900 years
A global flood as described in Genesis is impossible, for multiple reasons. Firstly, if all of the animals were on the ark, they would have less than a fraction of a square inch each. Can you fit an elephant in a square inch? What did the carnivores eat? How did eight people lug all of the poop? The decisions of the ark itself are impossible. A wooden vessel of that size would not be seaworthy. The largest wooden boat in history that was able to float was nowhere near that size.
Also, the Egyptian civilization already existed, but the failed to notice the fact that they all died, and continued on like nothing happened. The global flood is a story. A myth. Not a historical event that existed in the past. Just like the rest of the Bible.not to mention the basic logistics & biology involved - keeping only 2 of each in their climate controlled areas and providing them food, and getting rid of their wastes. but bigger problem would be the lack of any biological dversity and rapid extinction from incestuous inbreeding
Lelz.... Would you think Noah would bring along mature animals by pairs on his ark...
Yes I believe it, even though I have some background in geology, I'm not going to try very hard to defend the biblical flood from a viewpoint of science.
wba108.. - I respect that.. and though I might be envious of what you know about geology.. I am amazed where I live now the amount of dicoveries recently in minerals and oil etc.. its breaking wide open in the energy field.. necessity perhaps is driving the exploration leading to new discovery?
I honestly do think it has happened. maybe our minds cant comprehend such a think like Noahs boat and the flood. But i do believe it happened, or something like it. There's a truth in every story. I mean back in the day dinosaurs even existed. we just have proof of it so we seek to believe it.
There is no way that a flood as written in the Bible did ever happen and people that believe in it, they believe it just because they want to believe it, also length of time in the bible is wrong.
Here is the proof in a nutshells.
Look at the geography of places, Palestine and the dead sea: for those that don't know the Dead Sea is over 400 meters below sea level, if there would have been a flood that covered the whole earth, then it would have taken several hundred thousand years for the water to evaporate to the level it is today. I hope you see what I am saying?Hi Frank.. the Bible says that the fountains of the deep were opened up and the waters covered the entire earth. if they came quickly, then I suppose they could leave quickly.. thank for the comment. I AM intrigued at the findings in and around the dead sea. I hope to get caught up to date on archeology in that region.. in the past I have read "the dead sea scrolls," the archko volume, the hillel letters, which were about Pauls roots, and portins of Josephus, the lost books, the living torah, the lost books of Isaiah, (portions) and other biblical/historical works such as the life and times of, Archeology in the middle east, The Antiquities. also have studied the early Roman empire a little and feel much the same end is coming upon America. .
Yes, it says that, but we know it didn't happen that way. There is not and was not that much water under the surface.
It would mean that the first 5+ miles of earths crust was water, not stone - a clear falsehood. Don't forget, too, that at around 2 miles down the temperature is high enough to boil water into vapor and a little deeper it would have to be superheated vapor. Don't think we are sitting on 2 miles of water with several more miles of gas under that.add to that.. the diameter of the earth is 25,000 miles. average.. east west, at the equator. what is the radius? about 15,000 miles straight through? do we really know what is at the core? in the diffeerent quadrants? do anyone want to act intelligent enough to guess?
interestingly, admiral James Byrd, (I believe i have his name right) sought to find the mystery of the bermuda triangle. But all I will note here is that he found at least ship hulls, wreckage from the triangle reigon off the cosat of Florida. ( according to his diaries) up in the Beaufort sea, and in the very most northern regions of the atlantic. he theorized that there could be a subterranean water way through the center of the earth, ( at some level.) his supposition was that it would explain why he found the shipwrecked vessels that dissapeared in the triangle way up in the Northern seas. and it has been speculated that there is some sort of underworld incorporatede in this theory, with some mysterious sort of atmosphere and vegetation that could support life. .. but THAT may be the stuff novels are made of.. yet what about the waterway and sub-oceanic caverns.? let me say for the geophysics team here that the earths center IS being explored perhaps harder than ever before.The earth is approximately 8.000 miles in diameter (25,000/pi). Although we have obviously not drilled to the core, it is thought to be a spinning ball of molten iron, giving the earth it's magnetic field. The crust (primarily stony material) sits atop molten lava and is of widely varying thickness ranging from a few hundreds of feet (Hawaii, Yellowstone park) to many miles (Tibet).
No, there is no underwater passage through the center of the earth. No, there is no underground cavern with vegetation (it's a little dark for photosynthesis) and atmosphere - the last one I'm aware of to speculate that was Jules Verne in a fictional novel. True, various peoples of the far distant past believed in such caverns, populated with gnomes, dwarves and various other creatures, but then they also believed the earth was flat, the sun traveled around the earth and that God flooded the entire earth at one time.
To get an idea of what's in the very shallow underground, google south african diamond mines - they are the deepest in the world at something like 2 miles and provide some interesting studies. You can also look into "tectonic plates" to understand what's under the crust.thanks widerness. I first wrote circumference, 25000. don't know why I changed it. btw. I have driven 5500 miles almost nonstop, and it is a very far distance.. its hard to imagine that we have explored even 500 miles into the center of the earth.. but I am an open student on that one. gosh between here and alaska I drove past your yellowstone, half the lenght of the rockies, entire length of a province of canada.. ( got tired of driving the yellowhead highway as I wanted to drive all the way across Canada/ east/west.. anyway you get my thought here. many more miles once inside the lower 48 states. passed up the great lakes.. btw,, they still seem to have plenty of water. have flown over lake illiamna in alaska.. it has its own lochness monsters. ( debunks as deep water possibly 30 foot sturgeon that occasionally break surface,)
If I gave the impression that we have explored 500 miles into the earth, I apologize; we haven't even come close to that figure. I'm not sure what the deepest drill hole is, but it's only a few miles. Four or five maybe - I'm pretty sure we haven't been even 10 miles down.
Yes, 5000 miles is a long way to drive, but it's just a little over halfway to the center of the earth. It's a big planet, isn't it?
The great lakes - did you know the shorelines are receding? The very earth is slooowly rebounding from the weight of the glaciers that gouged out the lakes, raising the shorelines and making the water recede. One day Niagara falls we be cut back clear to lake Erie itself, whereupon it will drain via a truly cataclysmic flood to the sea. Fascinating stuff
Hi Oscarlites; I know that what you are saying is written in the Bible, but to believe it or not is open to discussions and that is what we are doing here. For me there are a lot of things in the Bible that do not add up so to speak. So I have made up my own mind to look at these things with an open mind, I also could say other things about time and date in the Bible that do not add up, some of these discussions and views I have published in hub pages feel free to check them out.
Because the cycle the Bible reveals consisting of a spiritual civilization (Revelation 21) and this material one the Adam concept began, I Believe the flood was not water but of ignorance. The following is how my vision of the perfect (1 Corinthians 13:9-10) eliminates the parts .
Genesis 1- 8 is an all-at-once rapture of those saved out of the spiritual civilization. The waters upon which the Spirit of God moved represent the people like in Revelation 17:15, forming light without a source of light was separating the saved from the unsaved rapturing the saved above the firmament into heaven. The remaining spiritual people didn't learn their bodies enough to eat and reproduce until the ending of the sixth day, thousand years, and reproduced for another thousand, day of rest .
At the end of the 7 thousandth year Adam was born and placed in an isolated garden where his mother disappeared from him about the time he began to crawl but watched him as the voice until he reached about 12 years old. Then she began to help him name the animals and birds and caused him to have a dream of a girl being taken from him -- the Bible doesn't say god told him of the operation therefore he dreamed it -- who appeared before him when he awoke. Assuming she came out of him he called her woven from man or woman, however, he was actually calling them both woman and is why at the flood their descendants are called "daughters of man."
Thus, once the Big Foot hairy man saw the fair coats of skin on Adam and their posterity they married what they liked of their ideologies, including liking and disliking, for which the flood (Revelation 12:15) of ignorance which kill the abilities Jesus demonstrated (Genesis 6:4) out of everyone except one tribe of each of the four basic ethnics, Noah = Asians, Japheth = Natives of the Americas, Ham = Africans and Shem Europeans.
The reason this material civilization ends with everyone except the saved discarnating (Revelation 19:21) and returnsto life after the first thousand years (Revelation 20:5) is because there is no way to reestablish the spiritual civilization with man-in-mass having memory of this one. It will take 6000 years for the saved to replenish the earth with the unsaved as they are rapture one at a time (Matthew 20:1-16) leaving the Branch from the root of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1 & 10) as the Alpha (first saved) and Omega (Last to rapture).
And so, that's the perfect rather than the parts most Christians teach.Lot of questions in one.
First, there is much information outside the canonical text to support a massive flooding in the Gulf basin, just off the coast of present day Kuwait. If correct, the location of Adam/Eve "garden" would now be under billions of gallons of water. This aligns with the four rivers -three of which still exist today. These rivers are also mentioned in Sumerian texts, which are possibly some of the oldest known records of human civilization. Extremely detailed, very broad in subjects from star maps to medicine. Another important note is the size of these people. A notation made several times in the texts and outside of them. Many artifacts too show very tall people -like the film Avatar. It is said Noah himself was a staggering 3.5 meters. This would explain the "giants" and why so many relics show extremely tall people. That said, the size of the vessel said to have been built by Noah would be larger than first thought. His stature -and that of his sons could easily subdue a giraffe, bear, etc and build a sea-craft in the given time period.
The land in that area tells quite an interesting story itself. From plush green fields (strong agriculture and viticulture) to complete desert. This suggests a massive erosion by salt water, excessive heat by a meteor collision -a combo of both. Although most do not know this, the average temperature for that region is 31. And after seeing the devastation of Indonesia from the tsunami, by an earthquake thousands of miles away, one cannot rule out this possibility that something major happened and forced salt water into the entire region. Coupled with torrents of rain like that of southern India or even Sri Lanka, such things are possible. The text states something that it took three years for the waters to recede and plant life to spring up. An olive tree at that. I have touched 1,000 year old olive trees and can tell you, they do not grow easily.
Genealogy is excessively important to most ancient civilizations. Recording lineage established validity for lands, trade/travel, slaves, wives etc. The time tables of this lineage match quite closely to changes/events mentioned. If Adam/Eve were the first humans, is a mystery. Were they the first of this kind of being? Possibly. The Sumerian people were extremely intelligent, using completely organic methods resulting in what we define as mechanics. Mechanics that could build great cities, ships, etc. Mechanics so precise, we are unable, with such "sophisticated laser equipment- to remake their tools (the Egyptians are a prime example, as they are directly related to them, and some believe the Mayans too). Even quantum physics, complex mathematics -and some scholars think- nuclear and or solar technology existed in their culture.
From the Sumerians came the lineage of Abram, the forefather of the Nomadic [Hebrews/Arabs]. Artifacts of the first four cities said to have been built by Cain suggest they were either Sumerian themselves or close relatives. The third largest of those cities, Ur, is where Abram, his brothers and father lived. From here he was "called out" from a generally "pagan" civilization to form a more structured/intellectual/civil one, known today as the Nomadic [Hebrews, Arabs].
If the lineage is correct, then the sons of Noah who went there ways, are the fathers of the 2nd people - Asians, Greeks(Europeans), Indian, etc post flood. There are oddities though like: where the Eskimos, Islanders and South Americans came from. Did the Asians migrate northeast, across "Russia" to "North America" then slowly downward toward the equator; was the land mass all one at a given time; did they travel there by sea vessel; or did these people simply spring up in these places by nature?
What happened to the remaining species of animals in that region, where this flooding happened? Was it a tsunami or meteor that broke through the thicker layer of atmosphere and melted that layer while it also caused an massive earthquake, which broke open a huge underground water pool and caused the Gulf to flood? Many questions exist but so do many details. A savvy person will take both the informational and the mythological as meaning something great happened to this people, in this time frame of humanity. An event that shaped the world they lived in and resulted in global changes of people, places, ideas, etc. Had these events not happened, what would the world we know today be like? Are their stories a means of grasping the evolution of humans from hunters to space-travelers else a warning of our own devolution, and ultimate complete removal from nature -and with it human history.
James.I'm open to most things, but not this. Imagine how big that ark would have had to be to house every creature on Earth. Every creature? Just imagine. Just impossible if you ask me. And if mankind had to start again beginning with only Noah's family, well, that would be incest and incest breeds madness. But that could open another whole philosophical question. Are we all mad and don't know it? No point in trying to answer, because we can't know the answer no matter how long we mull over it. But, in a nutshell, I don't belive the Noah story and I won't even if they find the ark. Of course, they won't find the ark because it was made of wood, so it would have rotted long ago. I think, if you ask me, that like a lot of things in the Bible, it could all just be symbolic.
I just wrote a piece on Intelligent Design and Christianity which gives a full view of how I recognize existence, I believe, it will help everyone see from what perspective I come It's kind of long and I believe it fits there better than here is why I put it there.
Thanks, but I know all about how all of ID has been debunked. Starting off with the premise that every kind of dating method is fraudulent is not intelligent. Light has been coming from distant galaxies for more than 13 billion (with a B) years.
Plus these forums are not a place to advertise your hubs. Read the forum rules.I've read the forum rules, if I wanted someone to read my hub I would just send you to my website. What that does is take away the division of religion and intelligent design or science to show how they are integrated. Isn't that what these forms are for, to seek a union of concepts rather than maintaining the taught divisions?
I didn't realize you didn't write a hub, just another forum, which I was unable to understand, hopfully because of the blue. Change to black and I'll try again.
Drag the courser over it like you are going to copy it and it turns to white, maybe you can read it then, I don't see any means of editing it now that it's posted.
There is an edit given if to your own posts, but you have a limited amount of time to make those edits.
Evidently the time had elapsed I couldn't find one anywhere. I noticed in the introduction there's supposed to be a edit button but I haven't found one except while I was writing it. It was posted around 10 am this morning. Thanks, Rad Man.
Next time you post something go back and look at it. There will be an edit and delete button to the right of the report bottom.
Thanks, I shall if I ever start another thread. I read and reread that thing so mean time before posting it and still left at least one typo in it, someone just pointed out to me. It would be nice if we could edit them for at least 24 hours.
I struggle with this as well because I'm dyslexic. I'm guessing English is not your first language? In any case typos are not such a big deal, But when your thoughts are lost it becomes an issue. Why not type the posts in word and have your computer read you your text so you can listen for problems.
Good Luck.This computer I'm on doesn't have that soft wear and they are not about to put it on it. It's a wonder I'm even able to post on this forum, they have so many blocked that I can't even see videos from the White House and I'm in a Veteran's Transition House for the homeless since for the last 36 years I've had nothing but myself, a staff and a bedroll most of the time. Now I'm getting back into civilization to share what that life taught me and discuss my and their views with anyone interested.
So you believe existence is based on ancient myths and superstitions and not reality.
Existence integrates every concept found in it, no [b]fraction of existence can ever reveal the comprehension of the whole of existence. [/b]
Yeah, I think it happened. Prove that it didn't.
You're shifting the burden of proof. You claim that it happened, its your responsibility to back that claim up with evidence.
Okay, Hawaii's record for most consecutive days of rain is 247 days in 1993-1994.
The Earth didn't flood after 40 of those days or after 247.or just apply some simple arithmetic -- in order for the 16,000' summit of ararat to be covered in 40 days would have required 400 FEET of rain to fall evenly over the ENTIRE globe every day
nowhere on earth has there ever been a fall of 100 feet of rain in a single day
you obviously dont understand the basic rules of logic - we have no need to disprove every silly fairy tale -- it's up to those who claim these stories are real to provide some evidence.
Ok, I will.
Over most of North America, rock strata contain marine fossils - hundreds of miles from the oceans, and even high in the Rocky Mountains. There are few fossils of land animals in North America, but for one formation known as the Canadian Shield. This formation contains many fossils of land animals.
Flood geologists explain that the flood carried trilobites and other Cambrian animals to the tops of mountains and to the middle of the American continent, yet fail to explain why it left land creatures in one place.
The only logical explanation is the one offered by modern geology and paleontology - the North American continent was covered in water for most of its history, with sediment burying trilobites underwater to fossilize on the seafloor. This seafloor would later be uplifted by continental collision to become the dry land we know today. The Canadian Shield was one of the uplifted parts of the continent-to-be, and was populated by land-dwelling creatures as they evolved.
Flood geologists also fail to explain the lack of sediment in the deep oceans. Water is a powerful eroding force, and enough water to cover the highest mountains would scour the land of sediment and deposit it in the deepest parts of the ocean. Yet at the seafloor there is very little sediment - the crust is very thin.
Well that's odd - if flood water can carry trilobites to the top of the Rocky Mountains, why didn't it erode the continents as it receded and deposit all that rock at the bottom of the Atlantic?
The Flood model fails this question, but plate tectonics explains it perfectly. The Atlantic is a young ocean created in recent millions of years by the spreading of the seafloor. This spreading is also proven by the recording of past geomagnetic reversals left in the rocks of the seafloor.
These are but a few pieces of proof that the Flood did not happen. For more in-depth explanations of how the geologic record disproves the flood, see Senter, Phil (May/June 2001). "The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology". Reports of the National Center for Science Education 31 (3): http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse … load/44/36
I believe in the Bible. Point blank. The whole problem with those that don't believe is just that. No faith. If you have no faith you are lost. I can't believe anyone would even question that, but yes, that is the day we live in.
Of course the magic invisible man in the sky tried to everybody with a mass flood. Don't you people read that magic book that condones child abuse, murder, slavery, and was written when everyone thought the earth was flat and burned "witches" Of course the Bible is true, It is the Koran and everyone elses crazy, yet surprizing simular beliefs we must watch out for.
Just in case someone would reply to something I have said and would like to talk to me, you can contact me via the hubpages. I'm unfollowing this forum because its just too irreverent and it is not helping anyone to dignify some of these comments with a response. God bless. Outta here.
There is just one thing in the story of Noah that bothers me. In the story it claims that when the waters receded, Noah went down to the villages and rejoiced with the people. If the entire earth was flooded, and everything was destroyed, except for what was on the ark. Where did theses villages and people come from? And, just how many people were in these villages?
Of course the church folks will say. Oh, that's easy. Noah lived to be 900 years old, and the people in the villages were all his relatives. Um that would say to me that those people were all created by incest. As the only people on the Ark, were Noah, his family, and the animals.
But, like Adam and Eve, nobody wants to talk about how the human race was supposedly created by those two people and their children. They always go back to the beasts in the fields, but will not elaborate or guess on what, or who those beasts might be.Briman - I will keep an eye out for that passage where it mentions the villages.. that could have been years later possibly.
Actually Genesis is littered with incest. Brothers and sisters and fathers and daughters.
besides which, multiple areas of modern science trace human genome back over 100,000 years to originas in africa - not that there were EVER just 2 people. there is ABSOULTELY no evidence that a world wde flood EVER wiped out everybody who wasnt on an ark.
you might find this link to be informative
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow … ck-1.11431
the bottom lines reads: "My strong view right now is that the true value of the human mutation rate is an open question"
If science is such an exact and true tool why is there contradiction, debate and so many theories surrounding everything that science comes up with? Shouldn't, by scientific method they all have the same conclusion?
Science, to me, seems more like the study of theories than actual facts.you obviously have no understanding of how science works -- unlike religion, science makes no dogmatic claims to the one true way -- science EVOLVES
and, no, the scientific method actually predicts there will be MANY explanations, false starts, deadends and abandoned theories; but along the way progess is made
Good point, the problem I have with stories from the bible is the inconsistency, and vague ramblings not necessarily tied together. Christianity is among the youngest religions on Earth.
I couldn't find what you say in the Bible. In which book and in which chapter did you read that Noah met the villagers?
It being that there is not, nor has there ever been, enough water on earth to cover all the land mass, no it didn't happen.
A small, localized flood a few feet deep, probably. Certainly nothing that could cover all or even most of Mt. Ararat should the claim that the bible lies and the flood was only local be proposed.Noah and the flood is a rip off from the Epic of Gilgamesh. World wide flood? Not a chance.
well, see, then , Paul you have to explain away the rainbow with that claim.. God claimed to Naoh and his descendents that it was a sign that he would never again destroy the earth with a flood. but I will keep a note to look for that answer as well.
Rainbows can easily be explained, simple physics. I can make one by using a sprayer on my garden hose whenever the sun is shining. Also, the people who wrote that and other stories of the Bible didn't know what an atom was, thought the earth was flat, and had no idea where the sun went every evening. These ancient text were not meant to be a history lesson or a lesson in science. An understanding of ancient beliefs should be manditory before trying to figure out these ancient writings. Taking these old stories as historical fact is simply rediculous.
Even in modern times, many theories are not absolute, such as they have had to re- calculate carbon dating 14 times.. one could even ascribe that since carbon dating relies on the pressures applied to an object, one of the difficulties is that a cataclysmic event could simmilate the necessary steps needed in the process of carbon dating.
I am not arguing for or against, due to my belief that history, and events happened as they did and no opinions can change the way they actually happened.. only the beleifs about them can be altared As it was already suggested in one of the comments. though we discuss them, none of us are capable of changing the actual events, only the understanding of how they happened.
Yes I have made rainbows with 2" firehoses in the spray pattern.. its pretty cool!
why would we have to explain the rainbow myth too? it's just another story from the bible that has nothing to do with the real world
- JThomp42posted 12 years ago
0Genesis 7:23
Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.Yes, that is the tale, but do you accept that it is true or is it just another fantasy story recorded millenia ago by people that still thought the earth was flat and the center of everything?
I CAN say, - that scripture says,, " as it was in the days of Noah, ( unbeleivers) so shall it be it the days of the coming of the son of man;) they will scoff and say, nope , no God.
I do not mean to laugh at anyone. but it is funny.. in a science class one day Johnny was called out to give his "reason" for believing or not believing in evolution. johhny finally stood up and began to recite. "first he was a microbe, a new age to begin,; then he became a tadpole, learning how to swim. Then he was a monkey, swinging from a tree.. Now he's a professor, with a PHD... the story goes that the professor dismissed class. (I wonder if Johhny got in trouble for this "insight" on evolution?)
It is truly a debate whether to believe we suddenly popped! or to believe "and God created man, male and female created he them:"
But I have seen suddenly unaccountable miracles of bones being broken and healed by people relying on their faith. -That is a convincing arguement to me that if you believe in evolution then it is popping little pops all over the place at specific times. -and miracles such as these don't need a "proof". -the one that it happens to certainly cannot be convinced it didn't happen. But someone is providing a way for something beyond the natural events of life..I've always considered the definition of a "miracle" to be an action or happening that violates natural laws and thus needs supernatural intervention to occur.
For a bone to heal via a miracle you would thus have to prove beyond doubt that it violated natural laws; that it CANNOT happen, and that's rather difficult. Simply because we are ignorant of the mechanism of healing, or because it is very rare, does not make a miracle.
Mankind will never know everything there is no know, but that ignorance is not proof or even evidence of supernatural activity.nor is ignorance proof that God did not or does not exist.. he claims that he needs no proving of who he is.. with pharoah of egypt.. ie.. recorded relatively modern history, God showed his own power through a miracle presentation of plagues and mighty works.. He said I will show forth my own glory. now that is what man desires to disprove.. that there is someone greater and mightier than we..
I know what the writings of those ancient people say happened, but I'm asking what YOU believe to be true. Those wild tales of physically impossible happenings from millenia past or what we know to be true from modern experiments and knowledge of the physical world around us?
Was the earth inundated with a billion cubic miles of water, killing all life (plant and animal, marine and land based, local to Noah and on the other side of the earth) that was not on board a small boat and that then disappeared from the earth?
Or is it just a fanciful tale, perhaps based on a local flood but blown up into something that is plainly impossible?Though it is not always presented to the purpose of proiving or disproving creation, much of what I have seen and read, offers me conclusions that there was a flood. scattered through mostly still unexplored mountains of Alaska, Canada and Siberia perhaps the least explored. artifacts, skeletal remains, traces of peoples that are acknowledged to have migrated from central Europe/Asia. many proofs of that region being the beginning of all civilization. yes. finding fossils of animals and fish up in the high mountians that do not did not belong there naturally? all give evidence of a rather recent cataclysmic event.
The "cataclysmic event" (call it a flood as that is the main topic here) you reference did indeed happen, at least to the best of our knowledge.
Unfortunately the event did not happen recently and it did not happen concurrently all over the world. Rather it happened over hundreds of thousands of years and in only small, local areas in any given time period. The proposed time frame of Noah's flood, for example, does not correspond with any major flooding in North America. There have been major floods in what is now the US, but even then they were strictly local. The Bonneville, flood, for instance, that carved much of Hells Canyon did not occur at the same time as earlier OR subsequent floods further north. The giant flood from the great lakes area down the Hudson river was in a different time period yet.
Floods occur everywhere, as do enormous lakes (Lake Bonneville in Utah, of which the Great Salt Lake is but a tiny remnant) and they are recorded in the folklore of the times but there has never been a time on earth's surface when the entire world was flooded at once. With liquid, anyway - there was a period when the entire surface was under water in the form of snow and ice.Sorry, but those fossils did wind up there naturally, through continental drift and plate tectonics.
btw, the evidence cited about humans in alaska, etc point to human migrations 10 to possibly 25,000 years ago, and coninuous occupation on the americas since then. for the noah myth to be true, , humanity would have had to spread out from ararat only a few thousand years ago, and there is just no evidence to support that claim.
Though I don't pretend to know it all, and we may differ in some areas, wilderness, thank you for being honest and for what you feel to be true.
We differ, but that's what makes the world go around. Not only no harm in differences, but there is often great good in them instead.
it's really interesting that other civilizations at the time alleged to be noah's flood never noticed this event.
Science catches up to Scripture with evidence of historic flood?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 … 73143.htmlthanks for the link, sabreblade - I will read that someonetime today.. I have to go do errands for now. I have to feed my evulationaried palate.. sigh..
Interesting link. Ballard has looked for years for evidence, is still looking and says he's not convinced he has found any, but "science catches up to Scripture with evidence of historic flood"?
How do you get that from the article?
Yes I believe that there was a Noah and his ark. I also believe that the almighty god has wiped out the earth population for being evil in this way. And I believe that future generations will see something like the heavy rains again too.
well, safiq.. your word is honestly spoken.. however, if you believe that much then beleive this too. that he said upon the covenant he made with Noah over the rainbow.. that " I will never again destroy the earth with a flood". -that was his promise to Noah."
please keep up with the post -Yes the lord vowed never to drown the world again. But if evil surpasses and becomes worse than it was before the ark then I reckon the human race or the in-humane race will invite floods and worse.
I have said this in other forums. Yes god gave us an amnesty, a promise not to punish, but god also predicted himself in the bible that the earth would become inhabited by evil doers so much that the lord himself would command the angles to stop time and destroy the earth. He will the create a new heaven and a new earth for those who did good works to live in. This philosophy is echoed throughout the bible and other religious texts too.I seriously doubt if God would renege on his promise. Never!
The Flood cured humanity of some wickedness that humanity has been incapable of duplicating since then. The Flood eliminated every possibility of that former crime.
All of the violence, wickedness and corruption since the Flood has been insufficient to provoke another Flood.
So, what was the crime humanity did before the Flood? (see my long answer, below, or my Genesis Bible Commentary series)
I think we have to ask, "What was important to God that was threatened by that unknown crime?"
I think what has always been important to God is the rescue of His children. And who are His children?
Look to Genesis 1:26 -- created in His image and likeness. Spiritual, non-physical and immortal sources of creation. Baby gods.
These baby gods died in the Garden -- escorted out and ended up wearing Homo sapiens flesh (see Genesis 6:3).
Homo sapiens is important because without the flesh, God's children would be incapable of developing philosophy and religion. God's children would remain trapped in the Long Sleep of spiritual death -- the death cured by the rebirth of spirit of which Jesus spoke.
why don't you start here:
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
and then go on to this one if you want to reeducate yourself and your holy book
http://talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr02.htmlSo many people trying to prove the bible not true.. there MUST be something to it! the bible I mean. to match the recantation of the man in the second article, is it not verifyiable that Charles Darwin recanted his belief that there is NOT a God? - right before he had to go meet his eternity..
WOW... it is amazing the amount of effort towards this . and reading through the main article, it seems many people there have jumped to a lot of conclusions. for instance- that the wooden ark was not seaworthy, or could not be seaworthy.. once I read where one seaman/ boatbuilder had tried to conclude that wood could not be supported by wood and fasteners to a degree of strength sufficient to sustain an ARK voyage.. then he went back a couple chapters where Noah had metalworkers make metal sockets/ brackets to hold the wood beams.. I personally believe that between God and Noah.. he was a pretty awesome craftsman.. I have seen specs previously shown me on the stress factors of the wood mentioned in the building of the ark,and I ( for myself) saw that it waas indeed strong enough to endure the stress of crashing waves.. I've also seen how primitive Indians pitched their canoes to make them plenty seaworthy.. and the Ark was pitched within and without. See that was early useful and intelligent knowledge of chemicals, natural resources.. (why didn't they mention that in the articles trying to prove the flood false? did they just overlook? or think it could not be seriously considered.? or perhaps think that if you believe in creation that you are unintelligent? =There IS a lot of different scenarios cited that tend to take you back and forth and around the world so to speak to get you to thier conclusions. it seems..
I for one believe also in the book/movie; real or not, of swiss family robinson, by william defoe? I bet you at least believe in the creativity of that tale. I'm just saying.. thanks for the info. but I also am appreciative of the fact that the reference site is designed to disprove something that interferes with another belief or theory, I should say of patented evolution. (the belief of a self created man and self created earth and a self created universe.. ) or some variation of such.
I conclude my response with, this for tonight, that if you need a library of books to deny Gods existence, then perhaps someone is still trying to prove something they struggle with. Something that perhaps cannot truly be denied as long as their are witnesses, or believers. and it has been suggested in this article that creationists create "harm" . shame on intelligent peoples, civilized peoples for entertaining such negativity.. such evil intentions.. .. if you need all belief in God irradicated, in order to be comfortable with your own beliefs.. . do you see that danger within your self? Or are you tolerant of the idea of free speech, beliefs, and freedoms as we should be? I ask this question.. seriously..
and its not my Holy Book, but its Gods. and Mose's and Noah's and Abraham's.. Its called the living Torah, and you, I and all men should respect it for what it is.. don't you agree?I for one, do agree that the bible should be respected for what it is.
A collection of stories and tales collected over centuries time from primitive and ignorant people. Partly history, partly an effort to understand the world around them, partly an attempt to gain/increase the power of the shamans of the day. Partly myth similar to thousands of other myths that man has created to "explain" where, why and how the world came to be, partly a rather sad attempt to eliminate or at least soften the knowledge that we all die.
The bible is all of these, but what it isn't is a factual history of the world or even of one tribe. While there are almost certainly some factual records of the times, there are known falsehoods,errors and lies as well. We need to respect the book for its truths and facts, yes, but we also need to recognize those records and claims that are not factual.Well said, Wildnerness, but we need to be careful not to jump to conclusions that we "know" all there is to know about it.
Your assumption that the originators were an "ignorant" people may well be true, but your certainty on that idea is questionable, at best.
Many "falsehoods," "errors" or "lies" might well be misunderstoods -- misinterpretations -- by the ones making those claims.
When I was developing my 3D astronomy software, "Stars in the NeighborHood," for the longest time I couldn't wrap my mind around matrix math. Every attempt to generate 3D images on my 2D computer screen resulted in a blank nothingness. I had misunderstood something. If I went around claiming that all the textbooks on such math were full of falsehoods, errors or lies, I wouldn't get very far, would I?
But I suppose the same point could've been made for Newton's and Goethe's "invention" of calculus. But they didn't sulk and blame. They knew in their guts that there should be a method for describing the natural phenomena they witnessed. Their genius and persistence changed everything.
I have been outside of my physical body and seen without physical eyes. Unlike most who experience out-of-body events (OBEs), I had not suffered physical trauma, drugs or surgery. I had been receiving spiritual counseling. Powerful stuff. And 41 years after that event, I'm still learning new things about it.
The body dies, yes. But there's much more to the universe than is dreamt of in your philosophy... or mine.Mankinds knowledge, vast as it seems, is but a minute fraction of what is available, yes.
However, those "misunderstoods", "errors" or "lies" that ended up in the bible are IN that book no matter what the reason or how they got there. Whether ancient writings or stories were misinterpreted, were simply changed to something more palatable or were originally false doesn't matter - they are in the holy scriptures and thereby give lie to the book as a whole. It cannot be accepted as truthful, but instead must be carefully examined and the "lies" expunged before believing whatever is left.
The tale of Noah's ark is one of the better examples; there is not only zero corroborating evidence as to the veracity of the story, but most of it violates natural laws as well. While no sane person would claim a man didn't build a boat, load up a few animals and people and float down a river or across a flooded plain, that isn't what the story claims happened. It may be exaggeration, it may be mistaken interpretation, and it may be outright lie, but whatever the reason the story isn't true.
There may well be much more to the universe than we think there is (and personally I agree that there is) but that is insufficient reason to believe any specific claim or theory that does not at the very least have evidence to back it.I like the fact that you have faith that a "small" boat could have been built and a few people could have been rescued ,, you have the necessary faith for that and I think thats great.. -- faith is necessary to beleive a lot of things.. we een have faith in constant principles , because they are beleived and proven to be constant, we don't doubt..
Lonestar-- several of your positions tend to lean toward a Mormon perspective.. I have researched much of the Mormon beleifs. they have a belief in other ancient civilizations,
No, you were not outside your body and no, you can't "see" without eyes. Whatever 'spiritual counseling' you were smoking at the time must really have been powerful stuff.
Wilderness. at least you acknowledge this book and that it has truth in it. . some won't even do that, and it speaks to their lack of understanding. Some hate the people that it is a testament/ witness of. -In fact entire nations hate them. sad. so far as there being lies? If God is true.. and if there is truth anywhere in the universe, He is the claimant of being the author of all truth. It says "let God be true and all men a liar.". Yes I believe in set principles. set values. set truths.. ( things that no one can argue with.) not long ago I heard the story of the first definition of "pie" being debunked. it took a second look at it to discover the now "correct" formula for "Pie".. but in this forum I have reiterated the simplicity that many fail to achieve .. that what "is" is.. whether it is properly formulated, or not. MAN merely tries to verify, or authenticate things they feel they did not have firsthand access to,( to winess firsthand). so the biggest arguement in this search for the answer is.. that recorded history seems to slowly change itself over time.. then what hope do we have of recording our own history? if someone plants a "time capsule" today and it is found ;say 100 years from now, would you accept it as a "proof" .. or would you do as many do.. and say,.. oh no... I can't beleive that, because by that time even "pie " may have a far more redefined formula , making it hard for the mind of that century to comprehend what they now would term as " our present day stupidity, even as they are saying of biblical times and recorded "time capsules" if you will.. in fact it would be a never ending cycle of unbeleif in what in fact is reality. ie.. today the proper def. of pie is E = mc 2
lets say that earth has another cataclysmic upheaval and pluges us into a lights out mode, or pretending we ran out of fossil fuels, ( which isn;t likely).. but fo rthe sake of argument, that now man is riding horses agian and living in an again primitive world.. well, in a coulle hundred years. there woould be broken pieces of history or knowledge of the grand advancements of civilization, but-- my point.. a breakdown of the belief in it having happened.. But would that make it any less truth? and if they set up websites to debunk it having happened? would it cause it to no longer exist as a portion of the "past' or civilization? even if they got diseases.. and could no longer speak or use their vocal chords.. truth speaks of itself. it holds it's on.. its believable to those who believe and is not believable to those who choose not to believe. that's why I say repeatedly.. I "choose" to believe.. each one of us chooses what he or she believes..
again for instance.. even if I was a bonifide atheist or evolutionist, I would then have to launch a study to decide which theories, which scientific conclusions I then beleived in.. ( and there IS many conflicting scientific conclusions.)..
WE all want to have it nailed down.. all figured out and perhaps we never will, ( the bible says they are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of truth.) Human schools and knowledge is even humble enough to express that we are searching as a people for answers to our existence.. well even yourself has indicated how nutty people can be.. don;t you fear what schientific conclusions are drawn in the name of the mighty dollar? and in the name of grants and exploration politics? do you think we are past and exempt the blunders of columbuus and do you think james byrd's scientific journeys were foolish? it reamins that they have had their impact on what civilization believes today, but now they are primitive , relative to new state of the art equipment, and things such as satellite labs etc..
btw.. there are natural phenomenons that are still unexplainable to the smartest human mind. yes there are studies and thoughts and thesis's , but real knowledge? yes breakthrough's are happening even as we speak.. some things are so complicated and complex its beyond our ability to believe,.. now that's a new angle.. but knowledge has increased.. and I for one cite that the bible predicted that " in the last days knowledge shall be increased.." there my friend, is proof of truth, if someone needs it or wants it...knowldege and discoveries have been greatly increased upon the face of the earth..
yet.. mentioned in Jm's website ref. it says that there aren;t records of the flood in the ancient civilizations.. let me say as communist and socialistic as China is/was? they record their history within the characters of their language.. every letter has a recorded origin and interpretation, just as words in the English language, so does their individual letters/characters. the symbols used for man.. the origin.. is his toe is in the dirt,. the interpretation/definition is.. that man came from the dust of the earth.. herein, their language testifies to the advent of creation and man being created. There is a lot involved with that study and very interesting. for instance and they did not mention it in the Noah's flood disaproval site, but the Egyptian's do have record of the exodus of the Israelites and the tragedy of the Red Sea event, and have some sort of documents for most of the bible accounts.. it says there requires mulitple accounts of an event.. and contrary to their claims.. there is multiple accounts of the ancestry of Mases, of Abraham.. all of the arab world records they are related to those bible "patriachs". Most of the proof one needs to believe is there. But what i see in science is that men are trying to disprove other scientists theories and prove their own.. what I am saying is it didn't get any better when man jumped out of the bible into the textbooks of supposedly higher intelligence..
Don't get me wrong.. ... I DO believe in the wonderful inventions of science and mankind.. improvements of our civilizations.. but on the contraire.. I wonder if some aren't misused greatly.. I stress on the highways of today sometimes fearing for my life.. and sometimes too much technology is a precurser to disaster.. as was in the tower of babel?.. perhaps we have misunderstood what God and the bible said about that.. perhaps man had indeed inbred and caused disease and it was a medical anomoly that confused their languages and yet it says God confused their languages and they were consequently spread abroad upon the face of the earth.. is not God the same as science? as medicine? I think in a really fair sense we can say that God IS equal to science.. the creator of science... but is not science not simply "the study of"? -we only document and study, or research science. there is a church that calls itself Christian Science in fact. But God created all of the sciences if you will.. either he is God of all or he is not God at all..
---- and the season proves that emotions are beyond our efforts to understand a simple organic complex alignment of atoms creating the microbe cell and the tadpole and the monkey and the professor now. God breathed life into Adam and he became a living soul.. hold your breath and you will see.. The soul is a living thing. God said the creature knows the creator.... may we have the will to live and the love of life and hope for one another.. and I for one hope that LOVE is great enough to make the difference in your life, in my life, and every single humans life to give them quality and substance of hope in life now and in the future.
no, darwin did not recant his theory of evolution on his deathbed. Sorry. Even if he did, so what? It's a theory - my atheism doesn't depend on evolution. Not even a little bit. Atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. That's it. You don't seem to understand the core concepts involved.
No one has to disprove the bible - it does just fine on its own. And it doesn't mean that it's true just because a lot of people don't agree with it. A lot of people try to disprove a lot of holy books, but you only accept one of them, and you're most likely against the rest of them. Does that mean that there's something to all of the ones that you don't accept? Can you prove that it's gods? Did he fax it from heaven? Are there not 3000+ denominations of christianity, and no one can seem to agree with each other? They all believe that they have the correct interpretation, and everyone else is wrong. If anyone could actually PROVE it, however, they would have a Nobel prize. Where's yours?
It would be impossible for you to know where I came from, but let me fill you in. I went to one of the most prestigious bible colleges in the world. I was a missionary kid, and lived in africa for two years with my family. I had plans to join the ministry as an adult, so I studied theology. I learned hebrew, greek and latin and can read the bible in all of them. After many, many years of study, I realized that the bible is not proof of god. The bible is a horrific book. Here's the thing. If the god of the bible were to appear in front of me this moment, I could no longer maintain that I don't believe that he exists, but I still wouldn't worship such a tyrant.
I don't have to prove that god doesn't exist - you believe in him. The burden of proof rests on YOU. Prove that he exists, and prove that the global flood actually happens. Saying that "the bible says so" is not proof. If it is, then the Iliad and Odyssey is proof of Odysseus - and all of the greek gods.
@Oscarlites, this topic has puzzled me ever since I first heard about it.
I believe most people have incorrect interpretations of the Bible, perhaps even me. That suggests that we should remain humble when approaching the topic. Some people act as if they have it all figured out. Any scientist approaching their own field of study with this attitude would likely miss important details. Humility and restraint are important tools to use when investigating any topic.
Problems with the Flood
That being said, I believe that the Flood represents some real event. I suspect very strongly that it was a worldwide event, too. Too many things in the Bible are not to be taken literally. I still don't know what we can take of Noah's story in a literal fashion. But let us say for a moment that there was a worldwide flood of water that covered everything, including the highest mountains.
That water could not have come from Earth. That leaves two options:
1) God created the water from nothing (and after creating the entire universe, a tiny bit of water to cover an insignificantly tiny world in a moderately large galaxy amongst billions of galaxies, would be nothing by comparison).
2) God or some agent of the Heavenly Father might have used advanced technology to gate water from another world, inserting it into our oceans from the gate portal embedded deep in our own waters.
There are all kinds of problems with freshwater fish, plants that don't like to be without sunlight for months on end, and all those species from every corner of the world. After something like 300 years since Carl Linneaus first started cataloging species, we're still discovering new species every year. Thousands of them! One man traveled the world to gather a sample of each? And he kept alive each species gathered while he was out gathering others? This is a logistical nightmare.
Okay, let's put aside all of these concerns for a moment. Let's say that God had some method for accomplishing all of this, including the possibility that there were multiple Noahs. So many cultures have their own Flood myths with similar heroes. What if there were several hundred Noahs?
Problems with a Literal Interpretation
Taking the Bible literally runs into a myriad of problems that even an omnipotent God would have trouble fixing. Take for instance the fact that Adam and Eve were supposed to die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit. But they didn't literally, physically die. It seems instead that they died spiritually. That begs the question, was Eden a physical place or a spiritual one?
Taking Genesis literally was what Archbishop Ussher did when he derived his groundbreaking work of scholarship in 1650. He didn't know any better. His brilliant scholarship gave us several dates that we still use -- like the deaths of Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great. But taking Genesis literally gave him a Flood date of 2348 BC. In 1650 AD, scientists didn't know that Egypt's sixth dynasty started 3 years after that date. They didn't know that Sargon the Great conquered Sumer 13 years after that date. That's a lot of people in Egypt and Sumer when the world was supposed to be empty, except for Noah's family.
Problems with the Reason for the Flood
Perhaps a more compelling problem for Noah's Flood is that inherent in the Genesis story itself. But as some problems tend to be, we find clues to a solution within them.
The biggest problem with the Flood story is that God was satisfied that the Flood solved His "problem." The Flood cured humanity of some defect or crime. But what was that crime?
Genesis 6 doesn't help much on this. It says only that man became wicked, violent and beset with a corruption of flesh. But hasn't humanity been wicked and violent since the Flood? This would tend to indicate that some very specific kind of wickedness and violence was found to be bad enough to warrant the Flood. God's guarantee that He would never again use the Flood, tells us that the cure was perfect and complete.
So, again, what crime is it that humanity can now never again repeat?
Clues to a Solution
We know that the timeline is wrong. Humans have been around for at least 200,000 years, so Ussher's 4004 BC could not have been the beginning of everything. Either Genesis should not be looked at for a timeline, or the timeline needs to be adjusted by some factor. I found several clues that lead to such a set of factors. And the derived timeline leads to the identity of the culprit -- the identity of the "daughters of man" mentioned in Genesis 6.
But what is important to God? After all, it was His needs that were not being met. Human needs may have nothing to do with God's reason for the Flood.
What is God after?
It seems, from my study of many of Earth's major religions, that the purpose of it all is the spiritual reawakening of each of us. But what does this mean?
Genesis 1:26 offers a bold clue, but few are willing to accept it. This passage tells us that man was created in the image and likeness of God. Since God is not Homo sapiens, then we must assume that the "man" of Genesis 1:26 was not human, but spirit.
Later, in Genesis 2:7, man is created again, but this time from the dust of the ground. This is chemical (dust) man -- Homo sapiens.
So, man has a dual nature -- immortal spirit wrapped in Homo sapiens flesh. This fact is emphasized in Genesis 6:3, when it says that man is "also flesh." If he is also one thing, then he must be something else, too. That something else is spirit. And flesh is the part that God will not always strive with. Why? Because God wants to rescue His children, not the bodies they're wearing.
In Genesis 3, we learn of the Fall of Man. This is the spiritual "death" that Jesus said would be cured by the everlasting life he promised.
Immortal Spirit Needing Rescue
Now, imagine immortal spirit no longer being able to see -- thrust into darkness and depending on physical methods for perception and control. Imagine those spirits wandering aimlessly through the universe, unattached to anything, and living in a kind of dream world of oblivion. They were suffering the Long Sleep of spiritual "death."
How much can you do when you sleep? Can you balance your checkbook? Can you work out derivatives in calculus? Can you develop calculus, as Newton and Goethe did?
Of course not! Such things require stable consciousness. And that's where Homo sapiens comes in. That's where civilization comes in. The new date for Noah's Flood is 27,970 BC. When I compared this date with those in science, I found the culprit. One species which looked very much like man, ceased to exist 28,000 BC. I suspect that the hybrid species from humans and Neanderthals mating would be incapable of building civilization. They would be incapable of quelling their own tendency toward violence. The wonderful philosophy which would be required in order for God's spiritual children to reawaken would thus become impossible in a world without pure-bred humans.
So, it seems that Noah's Flood may well have been a massive form of triage -- to cure the body human of an infestation of genetic corruption. Noah's Flood made civilization possible.
How did I come up with the date? That process is detailed in a six-part series of hubs -- Genesis Bible Commentary.Funny how believers scoff at scientists who say the universe came from nothing, but their gods can certainly wave their magic hands and create things from nothing.
It is hilarious the fantasies believers will make up to support other fantasies. That one is classic.
Noah clones? Lol.
That is some of the funnies stuff I've read in a while here. Coffee spewing through the nose funny.Hi! how are you? By the way, if I could get coffee from nothing I would be soooo happy
I love coffeeYeah, I like coffee, too.
Scientists say the universe came from nothing? Good for them. God is no "thing."
Does everything in the universe have a cause (source)? If so, then reality itself would have a source. But I can imagine a source that does not have a cause.
Now, where's my coffee?...While I'm sure that answer is most satisfying to those who wish to believe invisible super friends that exist outside of our universe created everything, it isn't an answer to those who actually would like to understand.
Yes, you can imagine. But, that isn't science.firstly, scientists don't say that the universe came from nothing.
Secondly, your imagination is not evidence. You have no proof for your super-being.
There are some interesting things about the bible. Sorry I am going off topic.
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth.
Beginning= when something starts. When something starts it need time. ( TIME)
Heavens= A place. A place needs some space in which it can exist.
Earth= Matter. If the earth has no matter it cannot exist at all.
Scientists are working on the Space Time Continuum. Whoever wrote the first verse in Genesis, wrote what scientists are working on today. Kind of interesting.
Also, there are verses in the bible which write about places, that archaeologists are finding. Like the city of Dan.You are equating Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the earth with the space time continuum? "Spacetime is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space as existing in three dimensions and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort from the spatial dimensions."
That is the biggest leap I've ever read. After that I couldn't read anything else you wrote seriously.ok, then don't read anything else I write
And here I thought you were going to go into greater detail and explain your connection. I guess not.
Well, I didn't think you were going to read it. The thing is people have written so much about the flood, all I can do about the flood is repeat what they have written. There is so much more about the bible, archaeologists, history, and other things that I can write about. I just believe what you wrote.
JM. thank you for sharing your background. I too had some experience in missions as a child. and I too went to a prestigious bible college. I have only learned bits and pieces of the hebrew and latin. thank you for your input. It makes it more acceptable and realistic to share of yourself and who you are. My hope is that the power of love rules within us. That future generations could know that we sought the truth, for pure reasons, kept free from hate and intolerance of others. I personally feel that the most important thing is when we lay our head at night, that we are at peace & that we are healed from past hurts.
With such shallow understanding and appreciation, your cup is already full (arrogance).
Perhaps you should return to this forum when your cup is empty.Is is good to know that you are humble!
It is evident that you are replying because your cup is empty, appreciate the honesty.Thanks @Riddle.
Yes, awareness is always a good thing. Awareness of humility or degree of humility are always good.
But someone can be humble and confident. Without ego, this is easy.
On the road to truth, relative truths are frequently replaced by stronger relative truths. That's part of the learning process. Letting go of previously held relative truths takes humility. Listening (as opposed to merely hearing) takes humility.
But some people cling to their relative truths as if they are absolute. That's a full cup.
I hope this helps clarify.
My arrogance?
arrogant |ˈarəgənt|
adjective
having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities.
1. One of us thinks human were given the entire universe by a God and we were created by him in his likeness.
2. One of us thinks evolution brought us here by chance and we are but another animal of this planet.
Which of the two sounds arrogant?
The bible speaks of lakes and rivers, of sheep and other animals and of air and fish as well.
All things science is studying. Science is studying everything around us - that it is studying any particular thing mention in the bible is unsurprising and in fact expected.
As Radman says, though, the spacetime continuum is something the ancient peoples never even imagined - that time and space are the same thing was beyond their comprehension level.But are they the same?
Space and time have a great many differences from my experience.
Space is points of view. Time is persistence. True, time can be visualized as an extension of 3D space, but is it really?
Certainly space and time are related, but I can conceive of space without time, or time without space.
I can also see energy as an extension of space-time, and mass, of course, as an extension of space-time-energy through gravity.
You make some good points, sometimes, Wilderness. But sometimes you act like a big know-it-all with nothing but imaginative logic to support your position.
How do you know the ancient people never imagined such things. Did you interview all of them?
How do you know, for instance, that the primal elements of earth, air, fire and water were not actually symbols for mass, space, energy and time, respectively? Symbolically, I can see a connection. To assume that there is none begs for an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy.My limited understanding is that time is but one more "dimension" of space. Length is not the same as breadth, yet in another manner it is identical; so it is with time. Truthfully, I have but a poor understanding, but it is all I can offer. For instance, I might suggest that earth, air, fire and water might apply far better to length, width, breadth and duration - mass and energy are interchangeable forms of the same thing and are not equivalent to space or time. Space|time might be considered to be a placeholder for mass, something that allows mass|energy to exist.
Do you believe the ancients understood anything of the sort? Or did they, like you (and I in everyday life), separate space and time into two very different things? Did they understand that energy equals mass in a very real sense? Outside of temperature changes (a result of energy but not energy itself) did they have any comprehension of energy at all?
I think not; it wasn't until Einstein and his startling and radically different mathematical assessment that understanding began to creep out of the night. I believe that earth, air, fire and water were superstitious expressions of mythology; on the same plane as astrology or the gods. Plus, of course, the physical manifestations of each.Thank you, Wilderness. I too have a limited understanding of physics -- probably better than most, but still far less than that of Hawking or even Newton.
When I was studying electronic engineering back in the 70s, I doubt many of my fellow students realized as I did the fact that we're surrounded by tank circuits -- trillions of them! As an artist and a scientist, I'm frequently firing from both sides of the brain. When I first saw the diagram of a tank circuit with impedance and inductance working together to constrain the "tuned" frequency of a circuit, I saw the same "coil" and "capacitor" in every atom. I still get goosebumps from that sudden insight.
Is time an extension of the dimension of space? I think it is. But I don't think it's part of space any more than your fingertips are part of your heart. Certainly, mathematically, it's convenient to treat time as a fourth dimension, but from a creation standpoint, space may be one dimension and time the integration (as in calculus) of space. And it may be that energy is the integration of time, and mass the integration of energy.
Do I believe the ancients understood anything of the sort? I don't know. And this was why I was so hard on you, before. I don't think you know, either.
But it's possible that someone in the realm of the ancients understood a lot more than we give them credit for. I was surprised that precession of the equinoxes was understood by the ancient Greeks.
But we also have other civilizations in the past that may have been more advanced than modern scientists would be comfortable admitting. Atlantis, for instance. Did it exist? I don't know, but I have evidence that an Atlantis like event occurred right when Plato's lost island was supposed to have subsided. I've even found geological evidence of the location that supports its past existence, including tectonic plate boundary damage and the Messinian Salinity Crisis. Could the worldwide myth of dragons be primitive perception of anti-gravity flying craft from Atlantis? I don't know, but the myths seem to suggest commonalities that support this possibility.
Wilderness, do you know what an "argument to ignorance" type logical fallacy is? I'm glad you said "I think not," in your last paragraph, but you trouble me with your claim, "it wasn't until Einstein." Why do you claim this? Because you believe it strongly, or because you have proof, or because there is a lack of evidence to the contrary? If you have proof, then I'd be happy to say, "I agree with you. Proof is proof. I like facts and evidence." But interpretation makes things a little fuzzy -- always. And a lack of evidence never disproves anything.
Of course, earth, air, fire and water could well have been superstitious expressions of mythology; on the same plane as astrology or the gods. I think this is a very strong possibility, but I don't know it as fact. The fact that you believe it to be so does not make it true. So, thank you for stating it as "I believe..."
and equating the four elements to the creation story in genesis has already been debunked several times. A TV/Internet show weekly has gone over this several times, and there have been dozens of articles about it. I suggest you do some non-biased research and see what you come up with. It's an argument from incredulity.
TV is an authority now? really! I have no doubt that more on TV wouold like to disprove BIBLE than Prove BIBLE
Tell that to all those televangelists. You know, all those nice christian people who extort money from the old and gullible.
I hear that! thats another hub/ forum though.
It was simply one EXAMPLE - and it's a show that's produced, sponsored and manned by one of the biggest Atheist associations in the world - by people who have spent years, if not decades, studying and have a very strong background. They're not THE authority, but I do respect their opinions and the evidence that they supply to back those positions up. I find that to be more of an authority than a 6000 year old book of frigging fairy tales.
Oh boy, you need to do some homework before pretending you know what space-time means. Well you called me arrogant and I'd like to call you ignorant, but I won't because that wouldn't be nice of me.
and what about the parts of the bible that archeologists AREN'T finding? what about the locations of places that are absolutely wrong? What about the fact that the field of "biblical archaeology" is now called "archeology" because even archeologists recognize that there's nothing biblical about it.
You don't seem to bringing THAT to anyone's attention. Wonder why?Lovely, @Michele.
I had never looked at the STM being in Genesis 1:1. Very nice. And then the "E" comes in with "let there be light."
I have long wondered if the primal elements of the Greeks were not really the same basic elements of modern science.
Earth - mass
Air - space
Water - time
Fire - energy
And it seems that the mechanics of creation are suggested by Genesis 1-2.
Ok, there is a huge universe out there Its physical characteristics are defined by time, space, and mass/energy (usually abbreviated as just "matter").
Any effort to determine the cause of the universe is purely hypothetical. No human was there to observe the processes, so any attempt to understand events of history (especially original events) must, therefore, be based on belief systems, While the theories and ideas may be many, but. this is what scientists believe
1) there is an infinite series of causes, going back into infinite time, with NO ultimate Cause;
2) there exists an First Cause that was "outside" or transcendent to the universe. How can a First Cause start if there is nothing to start that cause.
Many scientists today conduct their research based on their presupposition or belief that nothing exists beyond the natural world—that which can be seen around us—and thus they do not accept that any ultimate Cause exists.
But, how can something come from nothing?
Do you believe in big bang theory?do you realize that the argument you're attempting to use is called the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and not even a majority of christian apologists use it anymore?
Start Here:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Kalam
And before jumping right into the TAG argument, you can visit here:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=TAG
Your beginning premises are flawed. Something does not have to come from nothing. There is no nothing. you're confusing "nothing" with "no thing" - and that "no thing" includes no god. Sorry.
If you're going to move forward regardless of the inherent flaws, if nothing can come from nothing and there has to be a first cause, what created god? Something can't come from nothing, after all.And your argument is flawed.
Not every cause has to have a cause. But every cause in the realm of continuity has to have a cause. God resides in the realm of discontinuity. In fact, creation itself is an act of discontinuity. So are forgiveness and inspiration.
Science only studies the realm of continuity. It depends on the commensurability of cause-and-effect. God is superior to cause-and-effect. He/it is the ultimate source.and your conclusion is flawed. If everything, as you stated, has to has a cause, you cannot stop at god and say he doesn't have to have one. It's special pleading.
That is all meaningless gibberish. You create conclusions about where God resides and then toss it into a word salad.
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken on several accounts.
There is no infinite series of causes and there is no infinite time. Although the concept of "infinity" exists in mathematical terms it has no place in the real world that we know of. Certainly there is no "going back" an infinity of time as time itself began with the big bang.
There is no known "first cause" necessary for the big bang. There may have been one, there may have not - we don't know.
Should you really wish to understand that something really can come from nothing it should not take more than half a lifetime or so of study. At least that's what it has taken physicists that have made the study. Might take less now, though, as we continue to find instances of just such an occurrence.
Should you decline to undertake those years and years of study (as I do) then you have a choice to make: either believe the imaginative ramblings of ancient goat herders that also claimed the sun went around the (flat) earth or accept the honesty and work of modern physicists that have put their own lifetimes into the study.
You will, of course, make your own choice just as everyone else has done.May I humbly, so humbly add, widerness? that it takes a lot of faith to believe what you just said what you have referred to and every other belief about what happened " back there"... sounds hillbilish doesn't it... even modern sciences descriptions begin to weak when it is just guessing,.. like you referred.. kinda-like an explosion.. or bang.. and your own words we don;t know.. .. jsut saying.. lots of faith man.. I like that.. the faith part.. we must believe..
even Believers.. it says in Heb. 11-6 for without faith it is impossible to beleive or come to God.. for he that cometh to God must "first" believe in Him.that he is rewarder of them that diligently seek him..
instead our modern minds keep trying in the void of knowledge of God to believe in something else. with total faith, yet random and hopeful faith that they can ultimately prove something else to be true..
but "some day" we hope they can finally find and establish what we "believed" all along.. we had faith in our modern sciences.. yes we did .. this is our more intelligent religion of faith..
No I don't think all science is wrong, but when it seeks to make its own religion.. it is just as guiilty as all of the other religions.. and it has become a religion to those who live by it and eat by it and think by it..
but the God of the Bible says one day we will all stand before him young and old.. and give an account.
Moses said Pharoah will not listen to me! and God said.. yes he will. and for a while the scientists of Pharoah ( living torah) said they could keep up with the miracles that Moses and Aaron did, but finally they could no longer do the things that God could perform.. and God said " I will harden Pharoahs heart" so that in the end all men will see my glory.. humbly I say he can do all of this again today, because he did it then.
I CHOOSE to believe in the basic scciences as well.. but not in the religion of science. where you have to absolutely have to beleive and have faith in thier findings.. and use faith to catch a falling star way back in the "back there".. but the science of research and "what is real" wow. I am amazed at the cosmic bodies and the saturn rings and how it is all held in perfect place, or left in random disorder according to its purpose.. and "random" and "purpose" are antonyms.. we want to accept their purpose but we want to belief they were created in randomness? with no higher designer? hmm. lots of faith there.. don't you agree?
but thats why I DO like you.. you acknowledge the things you DO believe in. -thanks..science is not a religion that hands down a milleneum old book that can be interpreted a million different ways by a million different people and expect modern society to conform (or conveniently ignore) the rules, regulations and lifestyles of bronze-age goat-herders.
You don't understand how science works. Science follows the evidence, wherever it leads. Sometimes that means that previously held theories need to be reexamined in the light of new evidence. Sometimes that means that old hypothesis need to be thrown out altogether and a new set has to be tested and reviewed. Sometimes repeated tests prove a theory true or reliable. there is no religion of science, and contrary to what you may believe it requires NO faith to be an atheist. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. That's it. why is that so hard for you to come to grips with?
It's convenient, however, that your holy book says you have to blindly believe and follow something before you can realize it's true - since there's no proof for the book, the deity supposedly behind it or its historical reliability whatsoever.What you wrote is very interesting. Blindness. Blindly.
2 Corinthians 4:4 Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.Michele I was trying to find that. thank you! I didn't have my blue letter program open.
I don't find the bible to be credible or authoritative, so you can quote whatever verses you'd like. I may just know it better than you do.
Tell me, michelle - where is the story of how Lucifer became the devil in the bible? Where does the idea of Satan come from? I'm just trying to discern where you're at, so I know how to respond to you.The Adam and Eve? The casting out? or the creation?
Adam and eve and the garden of Eden have nothing to do with satan.
I'm asking where you get the idea of the "devil" - the evil counter to god that you mentioned in your previous post.Ok, well in the King James Bible it tells us
Lucifer was the Anointed Cherub. Anointed means to be set apart for Gods Divine purpose. It also means "bestowal of Gods divine favor", and "appointment to a special place or function."
God had given Satan a certain amount of power and authority. But he ( Lucifer perverted that power. Lucifer wanted to exalt himself above God... rather than "just" being the Angel of God.
Lucifer was created perfect in all his ways, but iniquity was found in him. It was not put there by God. Lucifer created it.
( this is found in Ezekiel 28:15 )
Like man, the angels were created perfect, and with a free will.
Satan was lifted up because of his beauty, he corrupted the wisdom by reason of his brightness (This is in Ezekiel 28:17)
Of course he was cast out of Heaven. Then he was given the earth for a short time.
Satan wanted to be God. The Bible tells us in 2nd Corinthians 4:4 that Satan has become the "god of this world". And Revelation 20:10 tells us that he will be eternally punished for it.Ezekiel 28 is in reference to the King of Tyre/Babylon. Biblical scholars all agree on that, and the Hebrew refers to it as a prophecy about a current king of the period who was opposing the Israelite people. It has nothing to do with satan. Doesn't your bible have that in the commentary?
the subject delicately changes in verse 11. Instead of “the prince of Tyre,” “the king of Tyre” is addressed, who is said to have been “in Eden” (v. 13); perhaps this is just a change of wording, or perhaps two subjects are interwoven and yet separate. What we have is conceivably a reference to the evil being behind the historical person; the descriptions seem to go beyond the mere earthly ruler to a spiritual ruler. The movement is from the historical ruler of Tyre to the unseen but very real and personal being behind his secular kingdom.
Many exegetes would reject the association of this passage, as well as Isaiah 14:12-15, with Lucifer, his creation and his fall respectively, and would limit both of them to Tyre and Babylon and their earthly rulers. But the association suggested in the above paragraph is worthy of consideration for several reasons
full of wisdom,” “perfect in beauty,” “you were in Eden,” “the day you were created,” “you were an anointed guardian cherub,” “you were on the holy mountain of God,” “you were blameless in your ways,” “your heart was proud because of your beauty,”full of wisdom,” “perfect in beauty,” “you were in Eden,” “the day you were created,” “you were an anointed guardian cherub,” “you were on the holy mountain of God,” “you were blameless in your ways,” “your heart was proud because of your beauty,”
Such statements suggest a greater being than just the human sovereign of Tyre; it is not inconceivable to entertain the possibility that the references are to the spiritual being behind the earthly ruler, namely Satan who is empowering the prince of Tyre.except satan wasn't in eden, now was he?
Biblical scholars recognize that the fall of Lucifer is not in the bible at all. I'm surprised that you disagree.
Additionally, god does create evil. In Isaiah 45, God says "I make peace, and create evil"
If god is indeed omniscient, he created lucifer knowing what would happen. He enabled the devil.Actually there is scripture in the bible about Satan's fall from Heaven. Look at Luke 10:18 Jesus says " I began to behold Satan already falling , like lightning down from Heaven.
So, yes Lucifer's fall from Heaven is in the bibleJesus (if he existed at all) was speaking long after the event. Where in the OLD TESTAMENT does Lucifer fall? The idea of the "devil" in the old testament is far different than the "devil" in the new.
Beautiful passage, @Michele.
And ego does it's share of blinding.
My one experience being outside my physical body with full perception was an interesting example of this. It took me 41 years to realize that ego was the reason why everything went spiritually dark again. And I suddenly found myself back in my human body. Ego does, in many ways, seem to be the master of this world.
Ego is vulnerable. The child of God, within, is invulnerable.
Ego says, "Notice me."
And the reason why I was given a moment's spiritual bliss in the light I suddenly saw had to do with shifting my focus from "me" to others -- from ego, to pure selflessness. I think this is what Jesus was talking about when he talked about being born again and everlasting life.
Everlasting life has nothing to do with these human bodies we wear. It has to do with continuity of consciousness which is impossible without these bodies until spiritual reawakening occurs.
Matter is defined as physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, esp. as distinct from energy: the structure and properties of matter. I've never heard of space-time being abbreviated as just "matter".
Infinite time, no. 13.75 billion years is a long time but not infinite. Who told you there was no cause?
The cause did not start from the outside of the universe. You are assuming that it did because you have been mislead. There is a cause in the description of the big bang.
The big bang theory does not say something came from nothing. Someone has mislead you. It's said to be kind of like an explosion where everything was compressed into something very small much like a neutron star. To claim that because we don't fully understand it yet God did it is much like saying nothing exist beyond what the naked eye can see. All we need to see beyond what the eye can see is a telescope. Telesopes are now looking back in time 13.5 billion years and in just a few years they will be able to see farther back in time.Then you probably know about the the singularity theory, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came. But, I am going to stop. Neither one of us, can agree, but that is fine. Some of the Christians here judge you, but I don't I think that is bad.
The question remains can a singularity be described as "nothing". With the naked eye a molecule or an atom looks like nothing.
mentioned the telescope looking into the "past" ///// "way out there" you will never find it.. God said "worlds without end". period. he made it large enough to keep you busy at it though.. ther is plenty in fact to keep us all busy.. the poor, the hungry, the children, the basic life needs.. and compassion.. yes he made us to be filled with compassin, emotion .. etc.. I hope we are all filled with this spirit.. of loving someone.. one another.. this season..
Rad I even respect that you acknowledge what you do.. you have faith that there is somethign you cannot see. I like that..
@Rad Man, a cause in the description of the Big Bang? Is that similar to Hawking's claim that gravity caused it all? Gravity requires space and what put the space there?
Every physical thing is a part of continuity-based reality. Continuity presupposes a cause or source.
But the source of all continuity resides in the realm of discontinuity. In fact, creation is an act of discontinuity. Poof, it now exists. This is not subject to the rules of science, because science only deals with continuity-based phenomena.
But where do you get the idea that the Bible was the source of the flat-earth idea?
And I think ego was just as much a cause of geocentrism as any interpretation of the Bible.
And that raises a far bigger issue. Interpretation. That, and ego, result in a great many difficulties. People cling to their own ideas (both scientists and non-scientists). Take the "Clovis First" fiasco, for instance. Ego got out of hand, there, and scientists were afraid to dig below the Clovis horizon because of fear that doing so would jeopardize their careers. Science by intimidation. How childish. As a scientist, I'm appalled that such things exist in professional circles.
Ego does damage in every human endeavor. And in such forums as this, too many use ego, rather than scientific restraint. Such know-it-all attitudes don't forward the discussion. There's a lot I don't know, but some of the claims on both sides are laced with arrogance, rather than facts and logic.
There are likely millions of interpretations of the Bible. Yours is likely somewhat different from that of many scientists or atheists or agnostics. Likely all of them are inaccurate, just as the interpretations of most (if not all) Christians.
The search for answers takes humility and restraint, qualities which scientists frequently mistaken for skepticism (doubt-biased restraint, which all too frequently descends into unrestrained and self-indulgent ridicule). Tsk, tsk!
Most scientists instinctively do the right thing, most of the time, but ego messes things up even there.By definition, space is the distance between two objects, hence it was energy/matter from the Big Bang, which are the physical attributes defining that space. And, the reason space is expanding is because those objects in the universe are moving away from each other.
That is why there is the peer review process, so that any injecting of ones ego is immediately dismissed. Scientists all know this, hence most never attempt to inject their egos in the first place.Hi Sir Knowles... hehe... you said before that space is nothing (synonymous to vacuum)...
and now you have a new definition of space...
The universe is expanding and this is the reason why the objects are moving away from each other... thus it requires space to do it...
I like how you talk about ego as if yours is perfect. Your very quick to call others arrogant, because they don't think just like you and your very quick to talk about stuff you clearly have no idea of. You seem to think only you have all the answers. You seem to think you can transcend your own body, I'll wait for proof if you don't mind.
Michele. thanks.. yes.. God claims that without him nothing exist's or will exist.. that he brought order to the chaos. It says that he hung the earth on nothing as well.. all this search of science is trying to debunk that God make order from Choas, and yet in order to do so prove that something came from nothing. Man cannot easily accept the beginning of life is within us.. the DNA of our creator.
Sorry, but scientists do not conduct research with that presupposition in mind, in fact, they give it no thought whatsoever because it is entirely irrelevant to their research.
There is evidence and explanations for such phenomena in nature to occur.
No, I understand it.
What you wrote is true, well in the choice part. But as for scientists. No, it is not a mistake, I am just writing what they are researching. They do not have the answer.
People do not believe in things they cannot see.
If you cannot see it, you cannot prove it exists.
It is kind of like a tiny microorganism a hundred times smaller than a virus, called a prionProof. What constitutes proof?
Does a virus exist? How about an electron? Universally accepted, very few people have ever seen either one. We see the effects of both and can manipulate both with predictable results so we accept both as real - are they proven to be real?
Not a soul on earth has ever seen infrared or ultraviolet light, yet we are confident it exists because we can manipulate and detect it with "senses" other than our own. Is that proof? Ditto for X-rays.
I can see mars with the naked eye, but only as a spot of light and not as a planet. Do we know that it is a spherical object circling the sun? Is it proven?
We don't need to see things to have proof. There are other methods of proving the existence of things than seeing them.
We have proof. Scientists have seen them. The few people who have seen them, have shown them to us.
Can you touch something and feel it? Maybe it does not exist.
Can you hear? Guess it does not exist.
Can you eat? Maybe food does not exist.
How much proof do you need?
A whole lot!
As for me, I think you exist. Perhaps that makes me a fool.What about Steven Hawking?
Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.
In the book he wrote " A Brief History of Time.
But he is angry at God. For example, he writes, "These laws may have originally been decreed by God, but it appears that he has since left the universe to evolve according to them and does not now intervene in it" (p. 122)what about steven hawking? Bringing him up without any reason at all is an appeal to authority - it's a logical fallacy. Who cares if he's an atheist or not? He's not a theist by the pure definition of the word. Deists believe in a god that does not manifest in reality - and if a god does not manifest in reality, it is absolutely indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist at all.
Well, not "absolutely."
The big difference between the God that doesn't exist and the God that produced all physical law is the product of creation.
Does every thing have a cause? If so, then reality itself should have a cause. The cause of (source for) reality could thus be known by the "fruits of its/his/her labor."
also, do you understand that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive terms? Gnosticism/Agnosticism speaks to KNOWLEDGE. Atheism/Theism speak to belief.
Are you going to respond to ANYTHING I say to you, or just continue to be intellectually dishonest and ignore me completely?JM.. I sense hate. I'm surprised you show such strong emotion. and your wanting to take over the forum.. to dictate the rules.. that is not what we are doing here.
how on earth do you equate hate with anything I've said, and how in the world am I trying to take over the forum? What basis do you have for such baseless and groundless assumptions about someone you don't even know? How do you get to dictate the rules of what happens here? I'm not insulting anyone, or violating any of the forum rules and I participate in dozens of forums every day.
accusing someone of being intellectually dishonest and demanding they answer according to your terms? please accept we are in an open discussion and every is allowed to submit their opinions. If they don't answer the way we like we must accept that and move on. do you agree?
Intellectual dishonesty is not accusing someone of being a liar. To be intellectually honest, you accept all answers on their own terms. She has thus far failed to acknowledge anything that I've said directly TO her, but has answered other people. That is the definition of intellectual dishonesty, and to call a logical fallacy out is hardly rude or inappropriate. I was simply trying to discern whether or not she was going to answer anything I said - if she was, I would continue to respond to her posts. If not, I was going to move on to other posts that I could actually discuss and not waste my own time. I don't believe that's unfair. I didn't "demand" anything. Just asked a question.
I am not ignoring you, I am doing laundry. Sorry
In an interview published in The Guardian newspaper, Hawking regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, believing that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
That is true, he does not believe in Heaven.
But interesting that Hawking should say such an unsupportable thing as, "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Heaven is actually place of light, so there may be some truth in Hawking's statement. Physical reality and ego-bound awareness are places of darkness, spiritually at least. But "fairy story?" Hawking believes in fairies? How quaint. (joke)Even this you don't understand? He is not saying he believes in Fairy tales, he's saying you do.
It is astounding, to say the least, one can so easily dismiss those who have a very strong understanding of how the nature works by invoking claims and knowledge for physical characteristics and properties of the very fairy story location in question. Ego-bound awareness, indeed.
From the Wilderness dictionary (which many will disagree with):
An atheist states "There is no God"
A theist states "There is a God"
An agnositic states "I don't know if there is a God"
Only a fool would claim to be either atheist or theist as there is not, nor can there be, evidence proving or disproving the existence of God.
Is that what Hawking meant in denying he is an atheist?I would disagree with those terms. An atheist may say that there is no god, but they would be considered "strong atheists". Most atheists, including myself, would state that I don't have a belief in a god. Not that there isn't one outright. I consider myself to be an Atheist Agnostic, personally. I don't have a belief in a god, but I don't know if one exists or not. If it does, it has yet to be proven sufficiently.
The God that you disbelieve declares " only a fool would say in his heart "there is no God". beleive it or not, the Bible is his written word and it, beleive it or not is the most read book in the world from time beginning.. it is the bestseller of all times.. and it has an author.
oops.. sorry Jm.. I misplaced the comment. You didn't say you disbelieve.. accept my apology?
]That is exactly what a dictator or despot would state emphatically to those within his control.
It is without a doubt, unbelievable.
That could be said about the Iliad.Holy men of Old spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit. God was the author. The Flood was our topic and we have now beat it to death, some of you literally. We are getting away from our topic.. we are now in a hub about everything else..
thank you everyone for your input. It is all appreciated..There is absolutely and unequivocally no evidence whatsoever to suggest anyone at any time was ever "moved by the holy spirit" - it is a belief strictly created from incredulity and an appeal to the consequences of belief. We now have institutions filled with people who make similar claims.
Holy men of Old = Mentally Disturbed
There is no evidence of that. If God is so omnipotent as to create a universe from nothing, surely he can create a book himself and reveal it to everyone.
The bible is the written word from the church, translated by men, from the words of other men that claimed they talked to God. It is authored by men, picking and choosing amongst many, many writings and verbal tales from centuries prior.
You may claim that it is the word of God, but that doesn't make it so. The bible itself makes the same claim, but that doesn't make it so, either.
You even claim that God himself declares that " only a fool would say in his heart "there is no God" but can offer no evidence to back the claim up and it, too, becomes just another claim and not necessarily truth.then by your own rules , you cannot say it is not true.
Of course not! It is possible that the entire bible, word for word, is absolutely true and the actual word of God.
I do find the probability rather low, however, Perhaps 10^(-19). Or less. Certainly not anywhere high enough to base my life on.
Is god's autograph on the bible? Was it faxed from heaven? It was written by human beings, who, by the very book, are innately sinful and likely to err. Which version of the bible is god's word? Which denomination is the right one? How do you know? How can you tell? I understand that you believe that the bible is gods word, but to use the bible to prove that it is accurate or authoritative is circular logic and special pleading. That does not count as evidence. What actual evidence do you have?
Yet you wish us to beleive that science proves itself? yes. God signed it with blood. yes it was delivered from heaven. yes man is sinful of his own nature. the courts are built on HIs laws to govern the sinful acts of man,. it is in the books of Law. Only True faith ( hopefuly in most denominations) is the right one. God has a divine living and working hand.. HE LIVES. HE IS. for those who believe in him, he is true to them. HE helps them with wisdom, with gifts of life, love, and manny other things. I have actual evidence myself of his power. of instant and permanent healing. of seeing the unbelievable. I have flown as a pilot , and observed things from the top down, and yet I didnt need to do that to beleive him. He opened my heart. he gave me understanding. he directed me. But as I keep saying in this hub.. You express faith in mans knowledge, in mans prowess.. is that not equally as amazing? man that dies and according to science has no ending? their end is no ending in my book. You won't believe even Noah's or Moses or Abrahams own words and witness to their being a God and his power, so why go ask someone else? believe what you will. the world is spinning out of control faster than you can control it.. Man is finite. God is infinite. His desire is for man to have an ending.. one that is substantial, progressive and lasting. Science offers you no such thing. Just a memory when you fall back into the dust.. but the wonderful thing is science cannot and never will stop God from being God. And yet God acknowledges science in the bible. as a wonderful thing that should exist in harmony with him and his word. yes I DO beleive there is scientific evidence. I believe all of it is scientific evidence of God. even the disbelief is evidence of Him.
I am truly sorry if that does not fit your desire for evidence of him, but that is your choice to disbelieve .. if you do.Where do you get the idea that science proves itself? There is a scientific method in place that either helps to prove or disprove a current existing theory, and as science continually develops, so do theories, hypothesis and scientists.
Courts are not built on gods laws. When's the last time you were hauled before a judge because you were wearing a cotton/poly blend t-shirt? When's the last time you gathered together with your family, dragged an unruly child to the edge of town and stoned him for disobedience? Was the bible hand-delivered from heaven or was it written by fallible, changing human beings? You can't have it both ways.
To me, there is an enormous distinction to be made between faith and trust. I trust what a lot of people have said. I believe that doctors (for the most part) can be trusted, because they've gotten medical degrees and gained their knowledge - and as medical knowledge evolves, so do the doctors. I trust that biologists know more about biology than I do, because it's what they DO. I don't profess to have faith in ANYTHING. I don't know where you got that idea.
I won't believe Noah, Abraham or Moses' own words? We don't HAVE their own words. We have a book that was written down decades or centuries later by people who were relaying an oral tradition. That's not the same as an eyewitness account, and even eyewitness accounts are suspect. When you go into a court of law, it's not sufficient to call one eyewitness and rest your case. You call all the witnesses that you can, and their stories do not always agree - in fact they rarely if ever do. Have you ever played the child's game "telephone"? You whisper a sentence or phrase in someone's ear, they tell someone else, and it goes on around the circle. the last person relays what they think they were told - and it's usually SO different from the original phrase that everyone has a good laugh - and that's in the span of a few minutes. How much different would the story be 50 years later? How about 100 years? How about 1000?
God acknowledges science in the bible? Where? By saying the earth has four corners? By calling bats birds? By saying that he made the sun stand still so Joshua could slaughter all of the people possible before it got dark (incidentally, shouldn't god of all beings know that the sun always stands still - it's the earth that moves). God's science is less scientific than a kindergartener's science. For a supposedly all-knowing being, he's really rather stupid.
Again, I'll ask you. What PROOF do you have of god?
here's the basis.
either a god exists, or no god exists.
If a god exists, there are two possibilities. That god either manifests in the material world (like the bible claims that he does) or he doesn't manifest in the material world. If a god exists that does not manifest in the material world, that god is indistinguishable from no god.
if a god manifests in the material world, there should be plenty of evidence to prove that he exists. If you could prove god, you would have a Nobel prize. Where is it?I simply disagree, Jm.. Nobel Prize is not the basis of reward for proving that God does or not exist. Because he is God, he does not have to prove himself on our terms. yes there is reference to science in the word. when was the last time you read it? I am reading the most protected book in the world .. the Living Torah. have you heard of the Essenes? they were protectors of the Law, and of ancient manuscripts.. we are still finding what they kept protected. there is evidence , but most of all it stands forever.. it is so simple that many miss its presence. but cut your finger and watch for a moment. and yu will know that you are fallible. He is infallible. He is self existant. no, JM I don't need or require a Nobel prize to make me the "finder" of God. I have found him for myself. I have witnessed him myself. He is of a spiritual nature and substance and man and science do not understand the spiritual or supernatural without knowing him.
I read it every day - in the original languages I might add.
Have you read Bart Ehrman's forged? Or how about Misquoting Jesus? Ehrman is a world-renowned biblical scholar who has an enormous body of work on how the bible has been altered, sometimes intentionally, changed, added to, subtracted, etc. I highly recommend his work.
If you could prove that god existed, it would be a worldwide phenomenon. You would be on every news network known to man. If god could be proven, then I could no longer say that I don't believe he exists. I would still, however, refuse to worship him. The god of the bible is a mob boss - not a being worthy of worship.
You're saying that god doesn't have to prove himself on our terms. How about prove himself at all? You have the bible - and archaeologists and historians have constantly found fault in it. There is no basis for the belief in the god of the bible, or in the bible itself.
Do you not admit that the bible has changed in the last 5000 years? It doesn't even agree with ITSELF, let alone history, archaeology or science. It is vulnerable and open to interpretation. that fact alone is enough to make me disbelieve it's reliability. There is no evidence for god, and you have not provided any.I have nothing to argue about this. I don't disclaim it. I stand on and come from the position it is Gods word . Others may disbelieve it, but that is their choice. God said it was passed on from generation to generation. you are the one trying to prove that it is incorrect or ineffectual. not I. I believe in Naohs Ark, ( Gods Ark) enough that if it showed up today , I would hop on it.. I don't have any reason.. you haven't given me enough reason to disbeleive his word . There is something more powerful than man. Its called life, and it comes from God. Science can put the rocks together but God has to breath the life into it. " in HIM we live and move and have our being".
oops.. I meant to say "prove" not disprove.
I don't HAVE to disprove god. You have to prove that there is sufficient evidence that there is one at all. you're the Theist. You're making the positive claim.
If the bible is supposed to be the infallible, perfect word of god, then it should agree with itself, and agree with history, science, archaeology, etc. It doesn't. It doesn't even agree with itself. Therefore, it is imperfect, and cannot be the word of a perfect deity. It's as simple as that.
You can choose to believe it if you want to, but you are doing so in recognition of the fact that you have no justification for your faith. Peter states that everyone should be prepared to give a reason for the hope that they have. They should be able to provide proof. You have not done so.
You read it every day in Hebrew? Wow, that is great. You are very intelligent.
I read the Old Testament in Hebrew. I read the new Testament in Greek and Latin. I like to stay informed - but I don't accept blind faith. I cannot believe in the god of the bible. I am more moral than that god.
Well, that's why I gave the disclaimer that not all would agree. I've used those definitions for decades, but lately seem to communicate better in these forums by ignoring "agnostic" and simply using "atheist" for anyone without a belief in God.
I don't think I'm alone, though, in using those definitions. Until these forums I was never misunderstood - people seemed to grasp my meaning without having a definition given to them.
In any case, I was simply asking what Hawking meant when he denied being an atheist.I like your disclaimer. I have seen a few hubs in which stupid people became very angry at each other, because they did not agree. There were stupid people on both side of the fence
Opps I meant forums. I am usually not in forums.
I understand. I just wanted to point out that, at least in today's terms, atheism speaks more to a lack of a belief. Atheists tend to refuse to outrightly say that no god exists. If they make a positive claim, the burden of proof shifts. Therefore, by simply stating that they lack a belief in a god (like I assert myself), the burden of proof still rests upon the person making a positive claim i.e: a god exists.
Bravo, @JMcFarland.
Many of the atheists with whom I've conversed say they don't believe in God, but act as if they are "strong atheists," instead.
I think he meant he was not an Atheist. It was kind of clear in the book.
I dunno. The closest to that I've seen from him was a clear statement that there is no need for a God to create the universe - that it could all happen very naturally. He very carefully did NOT say there was no God involved in that creation.
That makes sense. But, what is stupid. at least to me, is all the idiots who hate him because they think he is an atheist. You can find that out by looking it up on google. They are really stupid.
Oh, I don't think they hate him because of that. They hate him because he said that God is not necessary and his knowledge is enough that he is respected worldwide for his opinions. Put those two together and he has driven another chink from the fortress of religion and is therefore to be hated for it.
"Chink in the fortress of religion?" Interesting choice of words.
The hate that any people hold isn't from religion or spirituality; it's from ego. Fear of "assault" is an egocentric attitude. The same ego that made it difficult for scientists to dig below the Clovis horizon for many years, in American anthropology. Ego is an equal-opportunity destroyer in religion, science, government and every other human institution.
The only permanent thing is nothing of the realm of physical continuity. The only thing permanent is that which is source and resides in the realm of discontinuity. That's the best I can describe it in English, having been there a few times. Breaking the laws of physical reality, after millennia of habit being subject to those laws, is not that easy. Bad habits are hard to break, but I'm breaking them. And it's actually pretty cool. As a scientist, it's kind of fun to experiment on things outside the realm of continuity.A poetic turn of words, little more. Far, far too many people demand that all knowledge conform to a pre-formed notion derived from their religion; when it doesn't and yet is forced upon them it creates that "chink" in the "walls of ignorance" their religion has given them. They don't want to learn that those notions of reality are, in fact, nothing but notions and hate the idea that they are wrong.
I understand the feeling all too well. When you tell me that you break the laws of physical reality at will it doesn't mean much to me - I don't believe you. You may well be telling the truth as you see it, but if so you are deluding yourself and either can't or won't prove otherwise.
When I see that multiple experiments by multiple respected physicists show that turning a watching camera on will affect the photon diffraction through a lattice it upsets me. That shouldn't happen; it appears to violate natural law, but nothing can. It is discordant with the universe that I know.
Stephen Hawking is highly respected, and has made a statement that no one has dared to refute (at least no one with his depth of knowledge and respect) - that upsets the believers that find his statement in violation of their beliefs. Were I to make the same claim it won't upset them any more than your claim upsets me.Thanks Wilderness, for the clarification.
I wholeheartedly agree that people get bent out of shape trying to force everything to conform to their notions. This happens to the religious and the non-religious alike. That's called ego. And it does create a wall of ignorance.
But like I said, scientists do it, too. "Clovis First" dogma was only one example. Some scientists become downright childish when it comes to cherished beliefs. That's ego.
You said, "You may well be telling the truth as you see it, but if so you are deluding yourself and either can't or won't prove otherwise." Telling the truth is delusion? You have an interesting viewpoint on this. That you say (somewhat arrogantly) "you are deluding yourself," doesn't bode well for your use of logic and scientific restraint. Again, you're falling into the trap of an argument to ignorance logical fallacy. I suggest you look this up, before you repeat the mistake many more times.
If you had said, instead, that you have never experienced such a thing and find it incredible to believe, that would have been more well-reasoned. But to call the observer of phenomena "delusional" as fact rather than possibility, shows that you're not approaching the subject with the proper humility.
No scientist can ever learn anything new if they think they know something that is not true. This tripped up Einstein when he refused to accept quantum mechanics. I can understand his desire to have a God which does not play dice, but fixed ideas tend to shorten one's runway.
Hawking has said many things that inspire even me. They are real brain teasers that stimulate new thought. I love it. But that doesn't make him omniscient.*sigh*. I apologize yet again, Lonestar - once more I've failed to make myself clear.
That little tidbit about your experience and my reaction to it was intended to be added to my reaction to the bit about diffraction, and then compared to the believers response to a similar statement from me as opposed to the one from Hawking.
But I do disagree with the humility part. You have repeatedly made such claims in the forums but have offered no proof. You have offered no indication of what controls were used, whether observers also saw the same thing, what steps were taken to eliminate any other possibilities for what you think happened. As far as I can tell from reading several of your posts you are reporting a subjective experience without taking any care to providing alternate conclusions to the observations. Seems like I've seen you post that they are not repeatable and that they cannot happen on demand.
If so, no humility needed - those observations are nearly worthless as a source of knowledge. As a question, yes. As a starting point of investigation, certainly. Just not as a source of knowledge that you have violated natural law - you haven't proven that at all and should recognize that without prompting.As a question? That was my point, Wilderness. You were not treating it with a question (humility), but with a judgment (arrogance). Real science doesn't do that.
Sure it does. When a claim comes in from an unknown, someone with no established reputation, that violates known natural laws it is seldom pursued. No one is willing to devote the time to prove or disprove such a claim.
Instead the onus of proof is on the claimant to provide more information. For example, if you claim to have had an out of body experience, I would be interested in looking at the details of your experiment; what controls were used, how observations were taken, how conclusions were drawn, the environment at the time. Additional reports from observers would certainly add. If I find the procedures used are adequate to support the claim then I might try to repeat them, verifying that you made no mistakes (and in todays world of fraudulent claims that you aren't simply lying through your teeth).
If, instead, you make the claim and clam up then it isn't worth pursuing any further. Even if the conclusion you draw is valid, it isn't worth the time to pursue because there is no starting point. No one knows how you did what you claim to have done. You will be written off as a crank, someone that thinks they saw or experienced something but has no idea what and won't put the effort into finding out.
But you know all of this - your posts are from an intelligent person that has to know that unsubstantiated claims aren't worth the paper they're written on. You know how logical fallacies ruin a conclusion, you know how experiment "contaminants" do the same. You know that no one is going to believe claims of actions outside the realm of the readers experience without backup data.
No ego problem here. (sarcasm) Had to spell it out because you seem to miss it every time.
yes i do... I believe every word of the Bible... there have even been sightings of the remains of the great ark
no, there absolutely have not been. Where are you getting your facts?
They are allowed to lie for Jesus. It says so in the bible.
There have been people lying for Jesus claiming to have seen things, but they never bring any evidence.
There are always people making others look bad. there's always something negative about everything. you can watch the best movie in the world or read a flawless book, and when you read the 5 star reviews there are always a few that say its just the worst and rate it with 0. What do you have to loose to believe there is something greater?
Honesty with self. Reality. Ability to reason correctly. Time. Money. Emotional stability.
Dignity. I would lose my dignity and self respect.
It must be hard for people like you to understand people like me. Rating a book cannot be equated with believing the lies of other who are purposely misleading you. Rating a book requires no evidence, just opinion. Someone telling they've seen evidence of an old wooden boat on a mountain in Turkey, but not sharing that evidence is misleading.
You may not understand that's not a choice to not believe in God. I can't choose it any more then you can choose not to. I would love to find evidence of an afterlife with a loving God, but there is not and I prefer reality.But have you personally gone and seen where they claim there is a boat buried in the ice half way up a mountain (Turkey I believe?) that is estimated to be the size of the Biblical ark? If that comes spilling out of the mountain in a seasonal/climate change, would you then beleive? I think not.. you are not looking for proof of the biblical story.. you are looking for proof of your more fantastic theory of man's self creation.. IMHO
I AM glad Rad regardless of what you believe to be true in your search for life.. that you spoke the words above.. that DOES give me more hope in humans. more faith in humans . that you would desire it if it were true and provable in your calculations.. but hey man.. it is ALREADY done. as you said. Life is already here. if there is an afterlife it is already in existence regardless of what you do or don't do.
let me ask you a serious question.. you say you are a scientist. right? maybe you aren't. but you have that mentality. is this your final experiment when you state "there is not"? have you concluded all the evidence and findings and buried this thing? have you exhausted all of the science possibiities required to prove there is no God? no afterlife?
formerly as a pilot, I watched the radar go around in circles.. whether it be mobile transponders, or stationary radar in a tower. it goes around in circles.. even as the weather radar.. and yet in aviation.. blip, blip, blip.. it suddenly picks up an aircraft.. a moving object. its simply observation.. right? but it becomes present and has to be directed in the air traffic control center. communications have to be established. radio or transmitted information. the pilot has to respond.. in some cases perhaps an MOA, ( an F-15 aircraft) will escort you out if you don't respond quickly..
or a sigmet charlie needs to be broad cast, that you are entering a severe weather system..
even though they SEEM more primitive than even modern religion, (lonestar) it was their navigation system of life.. it was thier belief system ( I beleive I give credit to wilderness) it was what they had. and it did good for them. perhaps not all civilizations have done good though, and perhaps they were disobedient to the laws and the guides that they had. MAybe flubbed it up good a few times as well. but they somehow musta got it back on track, for here we are today...
My point is.. that whether it be civilization, or any elemental or more complex force field, it has some laws in place to govern its existance.. -- random ( maybe they need a better word) seems in my mind to violate the order required to sustain life. it has very selective and constant factors. you can get me out there in the space wagon a little ways with your theories, but you leave me hanging in the chaos of random design..random order.. does it not contradict stable vapor? stable solids? stable physics? stable experiments? stable life? in fact every microorgasm has its own stable set of blueprints. I was taught that in school, not saying a school is up to date.. have we all become quick change organisms that can suddenly through a wif! sping! transform us into a different species ? or you think.. your theory can only happen once, it can/t happen again , if its true? can't reproduce itself? but first you must prove its even the way it really happened, which no one can do that. (thanks michele.)
the bible has one quote that is right.. "Iron sharpeneth Iron".. at least they got that one right.. yeah!!I am no scientist. I do however enjoy the logic of science and am keenly interested in learning as much as my little brain can absorb.
I did do as much research as possible on the interesting broken ground in Turkey. It has been found to be a hoax. The people doing the research have no reason to lie unless they are trying to prove the accuracy of the bible. Those trying to do so have never produced evidence.
There are many things that are not yet understood and the study of sub-atomic particles is no different. This is a new field and there are lots to be discovered. I've read at that level particles can appear and disappear seemingly at random. Where do they go? Just because something is not understood doesn't mean we should assume it was made.you get that those supposed rock formations that resembled an "ark" have been proven to be nothing more than rock and an anomaly, right? have YOU hiked up there to prove that it's a boat?
I HAVE been to mt ararat, in 1999, and there was no evidence of any ark
there have been many hoaxes about finding wood on ararat, going back to medieval times when monks supposedly scammed pilgrims on their way to the holy land -- just like the pieces of the true cross if gathered togwehter would build a comfortable house. [not to mention the medieval king who had 2 skulls of john the baptist in his collection] see joe nickell's book The Jesus Relics in which he writes 'My favourite joke about relics, which he includes, is about the pilgrim seeing a second skull of John the Baptist, asking how this could be so, and being told: "The other one was from when he was a boy." '
Pascal's wager. I wrote a whole hub on it. Thanks, I just won a bet on how long it would take until that came up.
Jesus spoke.. even though someone comes back from the dead, they still would not believe. you are proving yourself a negatron of unbelief.. Because one DID come back from the dead.. in reecent enough history there is plenty of RECORDED first hand witness. evidence that the secular world has tried very hard to erase, to hide, to disprove, and finally ignore and not believe... if you won;t believe records from 1800-2000 years ago, then it appears very selective , event arrogant that you would believe "probable" threory, that has no recorded history, of what "possibly" happened 2 - 6 million years ago.. IMHO
Beleive in God IS based on faith as well as fact. so if its needful for you to do so, keep your science studies separate. i have no problem letting them entertwine.. and I for one belevie that we would have had it all fitting together Science and Bible if you had used your intelligence objectively to include substance with Faith.. before man even made his move to reach the moon, he engaged in a "beleif that he could.". and man put his "faith" in the science programs, scientists experiments and trial and error. .. Just ask Neil Armstrong.. I could name some others. What we have here is some boys still stuck in their egostical thoughts... its mind blowing at best.. but have on.. tell others that the are lying.. tell others that they don't have a real experience. But really.. you don't have much better..
Ponder it more.. the Word of God says... the letter killeth but the spirit giveth life.. I have abundant faith that if you put your intellectual rope around the mechanics of the internal spirit , it will get its grip on ya. and you will be a changed man.. You do agree I suppose that your entire life can be changed instantly, right? if the right sequence of events happen? perhaps it will.. God has ways of changing hearts..Why do you think no one believed he came back from the dead and was the son of God? I doesn't make sense really does it. If I saw it with my own eyes and was a witness I'd believe it. Everyone would right? But they didn't did they and you don't know why? There is only one reasonable explanation but your not going to like it. The only possible explanation is that it never happened, but it made a good ending to the story. You need to understand this story was written for the Jews, but even jewish witnesses didn't by it because it never happened. That is the only explanation for why they didn't believe him.
You're kidding yourself if you think the secular world needs to cover anything up. This is your indoctrination talking. Sure no thanks to Christianity doctors routinely bring back people who have been dead for a short time and sometimes they claim to have seen things, but studies have shown that they have never seen anything they could not have seen from there own perspective.
Sure science and religion worked well together during the dark/middle ages?Seriously, Rad! do you REALLY believe no one believes/ or believed that Jesus came back from the dead? how many millions of believers, scholars and intectual, well educated are you dillusional of? sorry.. man. You're out of touch.. really. the jews wanted to deny, to disbeleive for other reasons than to accept evolution,, that is bonifide for sure.. you should study WHY they refused to accept him as the son of GOd. it might open another of your spiritual senses.. yes.. even those who deny that they have spiritual senses have them. an inner spirit. that has an author. there is a God DNA within us. I will have to come back at ya with that info. i hate to leave ya hanging..
but we have been left hanging out there a few billion light years as well looking for a self made man. I submit that if he could have made himself in the first place he would have made himself a little more infallible. a little more indestructable.Billions believe that, but that doesn't mean people can just come back from the dead. And, even if they did, do we just start worshiping them for something that happened beyond their control? Ridiculous.
maybe a billion believe a bang a billion years ago too.. but that doesn't mean its true.. men are as ready to believe that even without proof. ridiculous. men are desperate to believe "something" , don't you agree?
There is evidence for the big bang, none for God, but you worship him and nobody worship the big bang.
Only those men who operate on belief systems and have little to no understanding of the world around them.
don't you think of dozens of zombies roaming the streets of jerusalem, hours of darkness, the curtain ripping in the temple and an earthquake MIGHT have been noticed by SOMEONE if any of it was true? Yet it seems to slip the minds of people.....funny, that.
you ascribe on the one side, that the people of that day were superstitious,( which they were to a large degree) and you state they weren't trustworthy accountants of history, But yet, on the other side, you want us to "trust" their credibility?
I don't think that is what he is suggesting, but - as a matter of interest - why do you think there is 100% absolutely zero reference to this or any other Jesus-related event outside the bible?
There aren't any accounts of Jesus in history. That's the whole point. On the other hand, there WERE historians, and they don't mention the zombies, the earthquakes, the darkness or the anything else. The simplest explanation is that none of it happened at all
Perhaps you misunderstood or more likely the case I didn't properly articulate my thoughts. I did not say no one today believes. No one believed it at the time. Does that not seem strange to you? All these Jews waiting for the prophesies to be revealed and when they are they don't believe? Sure 40 or 100 years after his death scriptures are written and some start to believe the scripture, but as the story goes, only his followers were believers. Sure seems strange to me.
I don't believe that no one believed at that time, as you do. Jesus went everywhere, and people beleived him everywhere..it spilled all over the earth with people believing him.. RIGHT from the start. = some of the statements made towards his existence are ill thought, ill prepared and slung out without thought to the lie they telling about history. Jesus life is recorded quite well. you just don't acknowledge your own historians, or practice fairness when dealing with your opponents. Go ahead an feel strange.. I would too. what I just said has meaning. no, you did articulate quite well. thank you.
troubled- btw.. you are troubled for you believe nothing. your own words thrown back at ya.. that is sad. I will pray that you will believe at some point and have a better life.You don't have to believe me, just look at the text.
Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.
Some of his own disciples doubted him according to the story. Why? This guy was said to be dead for two or three day and he confronts his only followers and even they doubt?that's not true. Examine the letters of Pliny and Tacitus - christianity was little more than a jewish cult until Constantine. The myth that it spread like wildfire from the time of jesus' death until today is just that - a myth. It isn't supported by facts or evidence.
You are articulate enough, and even rather blunt , at times, but that's ok.. thats your style. God has his own style, as well, and we can't very control him either, even as you are insistant we don't; try to control you. Why not let God BE who he is.. just like you are who you are.
Note:.. Yes, it was very hard for the disciples to believe that Jesus had come back from the dead, but that is becasue we are trained in the natural realm. God does things that break natural laws.. because he is transitional to time and space.. -- just like people today WANT to conquer that realm, in context of "Time Travel" and of course space travel. .. we are doing better at that one, so far. Yes, too, modern day scientist have a knack for "reading rocks"... but yet when they look back at previous civilizations doing basically the same thing, they are in denial that such could be realistic. But there were intelligent people back then.. only technology wasn't as developed to what it is now.I like this, your trying to tell me that Jesus's own followers didn't believe he rose from the dead even though he stood directly in front of them. So these guy following him around believing he was the son of God were surprised and were themselves in disbelief when he returned? Him returning wasn't enough for the Jews either? But you two thousand and some odd years later are convinced?
Your are right that there were intelligent people back then as well, perhaps the jews who were direct witnesses new better?
there are recorded first-hand accounts of eyewitnesses. Even biblical scholars worldwide agree on that. Do you claim to know more than them?
You guys have got to get together and perhaps agree which story to tell..
again. the fact that there were eyewitnesses. to you does that mean it happened or didn't happen? at least agree on the logic.. peter first doubted but then he believed. did you get the whole story? Thomas doubted lest he could put his hand into Jesus side. and he did. and he beleived from that day forward. men died for thier belief. many many men died for their belief. Yes the sanhedrin said lets cover it up.. lets hide it.. by their words to the roman government. You don;t have to understand that if you're not interested in this. right out of the tomb.. they paid off the soldiers not to tell. So the records show.I don't think it is practical or logical for you to borrow their reasoning for this.. Jesus presence was upsetting to them.. DO you really know why? how can you add their testimony to your arguement then? its very pick and choose up in here !.. I'm not going to reprove anything to someone who doesn;t want to know. who doesnt really give a care about it. . It stands for itself of what it is.. regardless of you or me. its part of our homo sapien history.. even as much as other supposed ignorant ones that you easily throw in the ditch because of your supposed higher knowledge.. let me speak of a higher knowledge and then you duck and run.. becasue you don't share the experience that goes with.. the spiritual side of it. the inner spirit of man. LIfe exists without you. without and before the advent of mans scientific experiments I might add. Jesus confounded the wise of his day.. perhaps he stood on your level ? or maybe higher in understanding of life! have you honestly considered that? that would be humbleness. IMHOSorry ! the above was not intended to those who DO believe in a higher, spiritual experience. >
I have personal encounters.. but I wouldn't care to throw them out here for you to debate. they are mine. worldwide and time eternal wise, others have similar and greater personal testimonies of experiences with a higher power. My opinion is these accounts should be allowed in the searches for a higher existence. which is perhaps not exactly your study. But note that one of the MAIN reasons for search of the planets is for higher intelligence.. Of course mans way, according to the human sciences, but nonetheless its being explored as we speak. and yes they are finding some pretty amazing things. but let me ask.. what platform will you stand on if they DO find the existence of GOD out there in scientific measurements?
-- I can answerr this myself.. they will try to manage it.. they will try to control it.. and they will try to reduce it to their terms.. But once they find him, he will NOT be controlled. Only by his terms.. For HE is God. omniscient, omnopotent, and omnipresent. . all powerful, all knowing and all present. Yes I would want to find him and get connected to that life source too, if I felt I already wasn't... just saying..You of all people are in no position to judge my humbleness - or anyone else's. Who are your eyewitnesses? None of them write a gospel. The authorship of the epistles of peter are hotly debated. There is no grands conspiracy except in the Bible - and of course it would say that in order to cover its own ass. Wake up and smell the coffee. How could the Sanhedrin (who was repressed and controlled) cover up zombies, earthquakes and hours of darkness in the middle of the day? No one noticed at all, and there were plenty of.contemporary historians that were documenting other things - except for ANYTHING about Jesus at all. Your personal experiences are personal. You can't prove them (which is most likely why you won't even talk about them) and you know turret don't Clint as evidence. Millions of people claim to be abducted by aliens, but you probably don't believe them. So what? Go ahead and pray for me. I'll THINK for you.
see.. you fit the role I spoke of.. maybe I fit the role you speak of.. then we disagree, but nonetheless. as someone else said. What have you gained if you disprove God for yourself, except another personal opinion?
What have you lost if you prove God for yourself and share the experience?
I personally think the answer is bigger than me, bigger than you..bigger than this planet. Its HUGE... bigger than any mountain or microbe that you can or cannot see. bigger than any problem. You just can't get your scientific rope around all of it.. and never will.. its bigger than you and me.. Yes I like coffee. yes you can smell coffee. and yes you can feel Gods presence. If you are ever privileged to feel it , you will know.. you won't need a science book. You won't ever doubt again.. once you meet God and experience his love and power.Again, I was a believer for 25 years, until I realized there was no justification for blind faith. I don't worship science. I don't have faith in science. I don't need faith, and I don't have to take the word of a multi-thousand year old fairy tale to define my life and confine my experiences. You didn't comment on any of the issues I brought up about the Bible. Interesting. AS far as the disciples being willing to die for a lie, out at least what they believed to be true. People die for less all the time. Nine people killed several thousand others by flying planes into buildings for a religion you most likely believe to be a lie because it contradicts yours. It doesn't make the story true.
Also, I don't have to disprove god. You, and others like you carry the burden of proof because you are making the positive claim. The fact if the mater remains that you have failed.
Deleted
If god really wants everyone to be saved so he doesn't have to send them to hell to be tortured forever, you'd think he would be smart enough to leave behind evidence that he exists at all. Christians are sheep to their god, blindly following a collection of fairy takes. I tried god. It didn't work. Then again, god says NOT to test him, so which one is it? God left his followers, dictating thatthey should be prepared to give a justification for their belief - yet none can. Tell me, how many amputees have you healed? How many bliss people have you made see again. You say your faith is steadfast, but if it was big enough to trump a mustard seed, you can do anything. Move a mountain. Show me your god.
God didn't fail. God doesn't exist. You failed. It is up to you, and others that share your beliefs. Don't blame god for you're inability to do what he commanded you to.
You also realize that some Christians are protesting the funerals of those children and are saying that they got what they deserved, and its you're gods wrath on America, right?
I have failed only in your mind.. not in mine. if anything I would leave you a ledge , lest you lost your identity as pertains to what you have confidence. I at least hope in that before your life ends you will reconcile.
let the doubters doubt for I know Jesus lives in me through His Holy Spirit... you can argue until you're blue in the face but the fact is CHRIST IS ALIVE TODAY
No, no. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, not on the listener.
She has offered you her proof .. you have a choice to believe or disbelieve.. just as I do, and just as we all do..
read below.. her daughter experienced healing. her daughter lives with her. I choose to believe.
... close your eyes a moment and imagine if it was yourself and your child.. If you still disbelieved- then ?
no! no! I don't want to believe even if you show me! sorry.. its ok though... its late..
thanks smoke angel.. I think we all believe you.you haven't shown me anything.
I could tell you that I have a purple pet dragon - do you believe me?
A bunch of anonymous people making claims on the internet to complete strangers doesn't constitute proof, sorry.This shows great disrespect from you!.. Smoke Angel is not a "bunch of people, and she is NOT anonymous..
are you speaking of yourself as the "stranger" ?
Unless you didn't mean this? your ppd is showing if you do.Actually, smokes angel is anonymous. I don't know her name, I don't know anything about her, and I also have no way of researching her claim. Conversely, my user name IS my name, and I I'm more than happy to provide backup for any claims I do have. Do you believe therefore that I do have a purple pet dragon because I posted it on a forum, therefore it must be true?
That's because the concept of "proof" in the religious sense is far different than what I would accept as "proof".
She makes a (unsubstantiated) claim that church members laid hands on her daughter and subsequently the daughter was healed. She assumes that the laying on of hands was the cause of that healing (through God) but made no effort to ascertain that. She made no tests with other similarly afflicted children to see if they could be helped as well. She did not look at other children that did not receive the help of the church. She made no effort to find out if atheists (with their empty words and gestures) could produce the same effect.
In short she claims a correlation in time between two actions and because she is ignorant of other causal effects declares it the work of God. That type of "proof" is valuable only in the religious field, where truth and knowledge are not the goal, but a bolstering of faith is.well, thanks for making the distinction. but again, she has her daughter and she is healed. what other proof would one possibly want? I believe she could produce doctors evidence if she wanted. She could take statements from each and every one who witnessed it. still some would not believe.. you know that.. they don't really want scientific proof. They only want to prove that God is not real. that there is not miracles.. that there is not life outside of mans own invention. But the silly thing is that man never invented himself. he never could breathe on his own. he is limited certain laws of existence. Yes I am willing to talk about those laws of existence, but I cannot deny God. I choose not to deny God. You cannot prove their is no God.. But events such as this strongly suggest a supernatural spirit, or "being" outside of the explainable laws of science.. and yes we could argue that day after day.
your claim that her statement is unsubstantiated is purely conjecture on your part. It is only unsubstantiated to you. I am sure you are welcome at her church, as long as you are respectful. And I realize I take a lot of liberty in saying that.. she MIGHT not want such anonymous men in her world/ life.
And you assume she is ignorant of causal effects may be your downfall should you go there... assumptions of themself are not scientific btw.See? You are doing the same thing. You're not interested in hard evidence of a miracle; all you need are statements that there was a correlation in time between two isolated actions. All those things you would accept as proof (observer statements, doctor statements etc.) can witness ONLY that correlation and not actually provide corroborating evidence of God's intervention in a natural occurrence. Even the doctor can only state the he is ignorant of any natural cause, not that it was God.
Would you accept the same level of evidence if it weren't religious? Say you stumble in your yard, spilling a quart of oil. Three days later your neighbor, putting up Christmas lights, falls off the roof and breaks his leg. He claims your oil contaminated his well, causing minor pneumonia and dizziness which is why he fell. He wants you to pay for his medical bills.
Will you pay, or will you ask for evidence? Will you make him test his well water? If he finds traces of hydrocarbons, will you make him show that they are the same as the brand of oil you spilled? Will you make him show a reasonable path for oil to travel between the spill and his well? Will you dump a different brand in the same spot and look for it to show up in the well in three days? Will you ask for proof that he didn't spill some himself, or any other neighbor?
Why isn't that kind of evidence required in showing a miracle? Why is a simple claim that God did it accepted instead of testing further? As I say, it's a "feel good" thing - it makes the believer happy to see "proof" of his God and God's love for him. Whether it actually does that or not is immaterial - only the perception that it does counts and if that requires that no further investigation be done (so that it cannot be found to be natural) then that's fine.
Events such as these do not offer strong proof of a supernatural spirit, or any proof at all. What they DO offer is proof that people want their God badly enough that they are happy accepting any conclusions that agree with that want, while ignoring conclusions and data that doesn't.
There is nothing actually wrong somehow with that approach to "prove" God. At least not until the speaker attempts to use the same reasoning on someone that doesn't have that tremendous desire for belief. At that point the discussion falls apart; the believer can't understand why their
proof is not accepted and the non-believer can't understand why the believer is saying such things as they have nothing to do with the discussion.whether it's "feel good" or being thankful that it happened. Its real enough. Life is real enough in the living of it and the experiencing it. It is a living evidence. its alive. yes you are right its different.. but its still real and undeniable to those living it.
And the benefits as stated by this woman are tremnendous. Medical science has not offered a real cure for asthma. doctors only treat the "symptoms" if they are there. The symptoms are the primary evidence of the asthma. therefore if the symptoms disapear, don't go back and try to make it reoccur. thats my advice. ( no I wouldn't want the second can of oil spilled. ) and if the neighbor made a claim, then if I felt I was at fault I would do my best to make it right. but really! here I must assert. - sometimes as you are suggesting very tacitly, lets leave the scientific work to the scientists. I agree with that. We can follow and study as we want.Oscar, let me ask you a fundamental question that may clear something up. Do you care whether or not your beliefs are true?
You're coming closer to understanding what I'm trying to say, but I don't think you are quite there yet. The thrust of my comments are not aimed at what a conclusion is (God healed a daughter in this case) but at just how the conclusion is reached - what the reasoning process was that produced that conclusion. And, of course, the basic misunderstanding and disagreement as to what that process should be in the believer vs non-believer.
The results of that healing were wonderful and tremendous - the same feeling I got with recent eye surgery that returned my sight to me. I do understand the joy of such a thing even though I do miss out on the additional joy and happiness that reaffirming God's existence and love provides.
For most non-believers that doesn't produce a claim of what caused the healing though. The two are completely, 100% separate, concerns. It doesn't matter how wonderful it was, it doesn't matter how much I love the result and it doesn't matter how much I appreciate it when trying to find a cause. An emotional response has absolutely nothing to do with determining the cause of an action.
Believers don't think that way. If it's wonderful then almost by definition it comes from God. There will be no real attempt to find a true and real cause, because that perceived cause is good enough. Not only good enough - it is a very highly desirable cause.
Leaving the scientific work to the scientists is therefore great for the believer, but to the non-believer is very obviously the wrong thing to do. If we want an answer we must provide the "science" - the study, learning and reasoning necessary to get a true answer - ourselves. The non-believer doesn't understand any other way and recognizes that at it's roots a declaration of God's intervention without evidence is dishonest. The "proof" offered so earnestly and in good faith by the believer is simply so many words, a side issue that should not be confused with finding truth and should never have been inserted into the discussion. (Biblical quotations are an excellent example here). I mentioned some tests/research that the non-believer might use in the next step of determining the cause of the healing, all of which are utter nonsense to the believer because they have already determined (and proved) that cause.
I think JM's question is very germane here - does the believer care whether or not the belief is true and real, or does the belief itself take priority over reality? The non-believer is required to set aside any subjective belief system before even considering a conclusion while the believer is required to find a conclusion that fits within the belief system and preferably reinforces it. It is obviously real if it fits the belief system, after all! The difference is irreconcilable and, I believe, is what makes so much anger, discord and misunderstanding in religious discussions.I wish hub forums had a like button, dangit.
Sorry, but that is just something she said on an open forum and could very well be a lie.
But, she won't because she can't.
Irrelevant, unless everyone actually witnessed God healing the person, the statements are meaningless.
Strawman fallacy.
Childhood indoctrination is mighty powerful.
You can't prove there is a God, hence your claims are meaningless.
It strongly suggests a lie and little more.
why don't you understand that the person who is MAKING THE CLAIM to know that a god exists is the one who has the burden of proof.
In a courtroom, the defense attorney does not have to disprove that their client is guilty. the prosecution, who is accusing them of guilt, has to prove them guilty. You do not have to prove your innocence, and the jury never delivers a verdict of "innocent" You are either guilty or not guilty. For someone who claims to be so intelligent and knowledgeable, how do you NOT know anything about the burden of proof? You're trying to shift the goalposts.you are exactly right.. but add the prosecution attorney role which you seem to be playing that role here. the preponderous of proving this witness as guilty is on you. but this case is not going to happen.. for she is already pleading guilty as charged.. She does not have to defend that!
Not true. I am not the prosecution. You are claiming that your god exists, I'm asking for evidence to prove it. You haven't given any. I don't have to prove without a doubt that no god exists. I'm not claiming that god doesn't exist concretely. I'm waiting for you to provide evidence that he does. You're so busy trying to shift the goalposts and insisting that its my job to prove you Wong, you haven't presented any evidence at all
tell me then how my daughter was healed of her asthma when people from church laid hands on her? or the little boy i went to school with could see without retinas? prove to them that Jesus doesn't exist
Those are obviously fabricated stories that only the gullible would swallow.
Can you produce this person that can see without retina's? Surely there must be documented proof. The study must have been exhaustive? While I wait for you to produce the evidence I require I see if I can find this person myself.
Edit: Strangely I found nothing?I think I've heard of something along those lines - a patient was fitted with cameras, a computer and direct brain stimulation and was able to see for the first time in his life. Not well, but shapes at least. I didn't realize that God was the designer of the equipment, though, or the surgeon arranging the implants.
In a similar vein, people without an inner ear can hear. The technical term is "cochlear implant" though, not "goddunnit".Thanks for the correct answer. She of course will have none or she will not give the credit of those invention to where it's due, the scientist and doctors. They are incapable of giving credit where due or receiving fault where that's due. Thank God or blame Satan is the motto.
Well, of course not. Miracles, perceived OR actual, will give a tremendous boost to faith and help quieten those small, questioning, voices,
One should never look at a miracle and either try to find a natural cause/explanation or question it in any way. To do so will almost always ruin the effect. Miracles should never be tested or examined closely; just proclaim it as God's work and be happy.wilderness I'm sorry man. sorry.. I didn't realize you had this post up.. it makes me have to apologize.. sincerely!
?? Forgiven, although I haven't a clue what you are apologizing for.
I think her firsthand story of healing of her daughter stands on its on.. It is up to you to disprove it if that is your goal.. but you can't disprove.. she has stood up to you . Truth, and miracles stand on their own. No one has to prove or disprove them. they are personal experience ; proprietary rights of the one who received them. Some scientists can't quite grasp the supernatural; but perhaps some can.. just as the doctors that recognize and accept they are but "helpers" or "assistants".. as I have heard them say many times in my own life.
(Wilderness you are back to your hobby of trying to explain away what you don't understand. this is not information you can "bat around" as you seem to be senselessly doing. ) ****** this was referring to the comment of cochlear.. I have posted an apology.. below wildernesses acknowledgement of God and Miracles.
Be careful Rad.. you are telling a real life person you don't believe their first hand account of observing an experience.. you are betraying your own "code" of discovery.You have a nasty habit of shifting the burden of proof which is common to apologists. I don't have to disprove anything. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence prior to them being accepted as true - and you exhibit your knowledge of this for all the god claims that you DON'T believe, yet seem incapable of applying the same logic to the god you like. Someone saying something does not make it true. To say otherwise while you do it yourself is the height of both arrogance and intellectual dishonesty.
You're not understanding how this works. When someone makes a claim (in this case a miracle) that someone has to back up that claim. I asked for proof which is a reasonable thing to ask for. I've noticed that people in these forums from time to time make claims of miracles and no Christians ever ask for proof. This is someone they don't know and Christians just seem to except the claim without evidence. Do you think they are just gullible? What happens when someone shows up at the door and claims that God has blessed them with the ability to grow hair or straighten teeth, but they need $1000 to get started on the process. Do you just give them the money or do ask for evidence?
All I ask is for documented evidence. I don't know this person and I'm not gullible.Agreed. I'm astounded that things are just accepted at face-value from complete strangers without question that's not how the world works.
To make matters worse they become defensive if anyone asked for evidence as seen below when he tells me to be careful.
"Be careful Rad.. you are telling a real life person you don't believe their first hand account of observing an experience.. you are betraying your own "code" of discovery."
Perhaps I should make the claim that during a near death experience God spoke to me and revealed that the Muslims have it right. Jesus and Mohammad were both only prophets. I bet then they'd be less gullible.He told me that she's not a complete stranger because her name is Smoke's Angel and how dare I not believe her at her word. (I'm paraphrasing, but it was something to that affect).
I'm sorry, but when it comes down to it, I may trust some of the things that you say, for example, because I respect you, and I've followed you around the forums. If, however, you start telling me that your house rests on the back of a gigantic turtle, and when it belches it causes earthquakes, I would require something in the way of evidence. It seems to work for everything - except for the one religion he clings to.
Try this one on for size. (and I'm speaking to the gullible one, not you)
I am god.
Prove that I'm not :-) By his logic, that should be sufficient for him to start sending me a stipend, don't you think?Joesph Smith did basically that already. He said God showed me all the religions are confusing everyone.. Here is the right one . he mentioned visitng 30 Churchs in Upstate New York. now there are 31 to confuse people. but that is what he thought of too, in order to get followers. Like you said fantastic claims get fantastic response. (lots of people beleived him) but God didn't come after, he came before the other Gods, and religions. I agree , organized religions have their problems.. You can refute though all you want, but it doesn't make God or miracles any less real. Yes you ( men) and (women) have taught me better to stand up for myself. and for what I believe. sorry that bothers you so much. No knowing any of you in person, I don't know whether to REALLY care whether you are real Atheists, agnostics, etc however.. Why should I believe you that what you say is real or not? (your own counter conclusions). But You personally are not carrying a claim such as this woman who is a modern day miracle receiver.. .. you are also not even carrying evidence that we popped out of a proton.. .. If you were, now THAT would be in the papers.. ( I think) if enough people believed you.. But I generally respect you and that you do believe what you say you believe .. now there is an example of trust.. I don't know that I would trust you beyond that.. but there is a chance.. 50/50 or so..
Biblical proof of prophecy is stated in the Bible.. If what a proophet declares to you comes to pass, then he is a true Prophet. but don't get excited. he's not talking about simple man made predictions..here is the thing about prophecy Oscar. If you actively work to fulfill it, it's not a fulfillment of prophecy. If you spin the prophecies to make them fit the way you want them to (as the gospel of matthew did) it's not prophecy.
The jews for the most part don't accept jesus as the messiah. Why? Because they have a WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF PROPHECIES that pertain to the messiah. Christians went through the old testament with a fine-toothed comb to pick out bits and pieces that they could then claim were prophetic to fit the life of jesus (if he indeed had a life) that's not fulfillment of prophecy. and NO ONE seems to pay any attention to the prophecies that NEVER were fulfilled, like the destruction of tyre, or Jesus telling his disciples that he would return before all of them were dead. We're still waiting, 2000+ years later. Guess he was mistaken. Funny, that, since he's supposed to be all-knowing and all. (but then again, jesus wasn't even considered to be god until about 200 years after his death when the council of Nicaea declared him divine and human. Up until then, the large majority of christians didn't even believe in his divinity at all.)
Hilarious. She can say whatever she wants on an open forum, that doesn't mean it's true. Most likely, she is lying.
Sorry, but that is pure nonsense. Personal experiences mean squat.
Sorry, but scientists understand the supernatural is meaningless.
Yeah, sure you have.
it is truly SAD.. that you fail to see that as wonderful as all the world is and as expansive as space is. that you fail to comprehend WHO man is, WHAT man is, WHERE man is, and HOW man is. - and to take advantage of that experience.. I'm not sure you are even riding the rollercoaster or the ferris wheel.. are you in oblivion? Hey, this life we're on is quite the experience. hey , stop and smell the roses! you're not a robotic rock! can I get you a cup of coffee? do you enjoy coffee?
Hogwash. That's exactly what I do spend my time trying to understand.
Gibberish.Hogwash? Gibberish?
wow.. that must be quite a study..
btw.. not laughing at ya.. laughing with ya!
I'm glad you are trying to understand..
I accidentally deleted this when I was trying to add content.. ( sometimes my computer is prehistorically slow..)
_________________________________________________________________________________________
No .. burden of proof is on God. he said try ME and see.. I'm sorry you feel that he failed. I'm also sad about the loss of lives that you speak of. I have pity for people with those beleifs.
SAD ABOUT THE SCHOOL CRISIS! SO SAD
JM I am the proof; the ones that have posted on here that DO have an experience are proof.. we are alive, we have the experience, and we are duplicating it every day. you just aren't willing to accept it. I have been physically healed, with doctors present. but you would never accept one doctors opinion, OR documents. you want a million and still you might not believe.. you might be blinded to truth, as someone said earlier.
Someone told me today of one of our ancestors. how he was blind his last few years.. and yet he learned how to follow a string to get to the outhouse, and to go all the way around his farm/ homestead. people in a blizzard have used strings , ropes to get them back to safety when they needed to rescue someone or feed the livestock.. God said "there is a plumbline in Israel." He gave us a safety line.. it is our choice to follow it or to lose it and be lost.you were miraculously healed in front of doctors? Where are the documents and peer reviewed journals about it, because all of the doctors I know would be all over it.
Do you know that out of the prayer studies conducted to try and determine the effectiveness of prayer has shown repeatedly that people who know they are being prayed for after a surgical procedure do WORSE than the people who are not?Not So.. I have seen time and again where studies show that people WITH faith and prayer do MUCH better..
on your comment. -doctors usually leave miracles and things they can't explain by medical science alone. Some do give great credit to God or a higher power.. and many many doctors practice and have their own faith.JM statement:
Do you know that out of the prayer studies conducted to try and determine the effectiveness of prayer has shown repeatedly that people who know they are being prayed for after a surgical procedure do WORSE than the people who are not?
_________________________
Oscarlites statement:
Not So.. I have seen time and again where studies show that people WITH faith and prayer do MUCH better..
on your comment. -doctors usually leave miracles and things they can't explain by medical science alone. Some do give great credit to God or a higher power.. and many many doctors practice and have their own faith.and many do not. Look up the prayer study. seriously.
http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/articles/ … euters.pdf
That is false, those studies produced no such results.
So what?
By your own logic, therefore, you should be able to prove that I don't have a purple pet dragon. Go for it.
if you say you have a purple pet dragon, then I accept that. it doesn't make it true or not true. I have no desire to disprove you. I'll let you keep it and whatever else you want it for. If you don't really have it, then why would you mention it?
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_ … fm?id=1398Great, that was easy. You're gullible, I get that. But we are not as gullible and require evidence. Gather your evidence and display or stop making claims that a God exists please.
haha. I'm not gullible because you say so. you aren't THAT simple to believe that , are you?
Okay, Oscar - I have now had the time to read your link.
I disagree.
Point number 1: I don't consider myself to be proud. There's a lot that I don't know, and I'll be the first person to admit when I don't know something. That's not proud - that's human. My pride has nothing to do with my lack of a belief in god. My morals do.
Point number 2: I resent the implication that I'm ignorant. I have a college level education on theology, scripture and apologetics from a very prestigious christian school. I read the bible in hebrew, greek and latin. Ignorance is the people that accept whatever they're told without question - regardless of the lack of evidence. As to the power of god - what power? I was a believer for 25 years and in the missionary field for several more. So what?
If someone could provide ANY evidence whatsoever, I would be open minded enough to consider it. Don't you have a better source than the "blue letter bible"? Seriously? I could give you a link to the church of the flying spaghetti monster - would you believe in him since you read it on the internet?That is why one would have no credibility, they accept outrageous and extraordinary claims without a shred of evidence.
do you ask for how many people have had their lives saved by your doctor? do you ask, how many hearts have you transplanted? really? do you ask him to pull his credentials out of his pocket? you are just as blind.. I think I remember Jesus saying just about the same thing to a bunch of publicans and lawyers and they slank away.. another place he said "let the one that has Not commited adultery throw the first stone!." they all fled from before him.. too bad you weren't there huh,.. you would have stood up to him? or would you have let the woman was being judged walk away as he did? why do people hate truth so much? why do they hate hate hate.. No one that I know hates the fact that he died for our sins.. but they hate that he claims to have created the universe. that he has all power. they try every day to proof that he didn't.. they try to get people to be quiet about him.. why don't those people take it up with him. He said he will listen to you if you are truthful and sincere.. can you not do that, long enough to ask.. GOD are you real?
you get that the story in John that you're referring to wasn't even IN the gospel of John until it was added by a scribe several hundred years later, right? I bet your bible even says it in the notes under the passage. It never happened. It wasn't in the gospel until someone added it hundreds of years after Jesus supposedly lived. Come up with a more relevant example, please.
and I DO ask for my doctor's credentials, thank you very much. If you don't do your research before receiving treatment, you are even more ridiculous than I thought you were. Additionally, I don't hate fairy tales. You get that I don't believe in Jesus or god, right? How could I hate something that I don't even believe is real? Do you hate the boogeyman? Do you hate santa clause? Do you hate my purple pet dragon? No. You don't believe in them. Why do you ASSUME that a lack of belief, and the ridicule of ridiculous beliefs amounts to hate? Are you THAT narrow minded and incredulous that you simply cannot accept that other people don't conform to your narrow, insignificant god-box so you have to inject hate into the equation.I'm not hateful. I just find it funny that out of all the scriptures you can quote, you quote a passage that is accepted by all biblical scholars to be a known forgery. I don't like being accused of hating something - especially when it's a something I don't even believe exists. Do you understand how silly that is? Do you waste a lot of time hating things that you don't even believe in?
On top of all that - you have your fingers in your ears, or blind-glasses on. How many times do I have to tell you I WAS a christian for over 25 years? I did the song and dance and happy-kool-aid dance thingie. I woke up. Studying the bible allowed me to become an atheist. I did the whole "god are you real" bologna. Still an atheist. how are you not comprehending this?
The idea that an all-powerful, all-benevolent super being created the world so flawed that he had to come up with a plan to save it from the rules that he imposed in the first place, so he sent himself to earth as a human being in order to sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself for his OWN creation is so ridiculous that I pity your ignorance. god is supposed to be all-powerful. Why demand blood/burning flesh or death at all? Why not just say "you know what, my laws were kind of stupid, and you're going to disregard them all eventually anyway when you move out of the bronze age, so I'll just forgive you for them, cause I'm god and I can"?
Any god that would enjoy the smell of burning flesh, thinks that forcing a woman to marry her rapist, condones slavery and hates women is not a moral god. Any god that would create a place like hell to send all of the people who use the brains that he created them to have to not believe in him is not a moral god. He's a mob-boss. He stands up there and says "if you don't do what i say, i'm going to torture you forever - and by the way, if you call my prophet bald, I'm going to send 2 she-bears to maul 42 children to death", is not a moral, just or good god. Any god that thinks that the murder of an innocent is good enough to save the guilty so they never have to be accountable to their crimes is not a moral god. Any god that demands worship and adoration instead of earning it is an egomaniac.
Any god that would allow a teenage girl to be raped, murdered and mutilated but sends her to hell because she didn't believe in him, while also allowing her rapist to go to heaven because of a death-bed conversion is repulsive. How does any of this make sense to you? How is any of this acceptable to you, and how can you POSSIBLY give this tyrant any adoration at all?All I can respond with, JM, is go ahead and get it all out.. we're listening..
"Any god that would allow a teenage girl to be raped, murdered and mutilated but sends her to hell because she didn't believe in him, while also allowing her rapist to go to heaven because of a death-bed conversion is repulsive. How does any of this make sense to you? How is any of this acceptable to you, and how can you POSSIBLY give this tyrant any adoration at all?"
God gave us paradise at first and mankind fell away from it and everything that happens, happens because of some evil in a mans heart.
How do you propose that God correct these types of situations? God has allowed mankind to govern themselves - God will help anyone who calls upon his name - but God will not teleport any offender to another place, God will not kill people because their intentions are evil. All the harm that falls on mankind is mankinds responsibility and not that of a magic God, who is restrained by the same laws of nature and physics that we know of today.
Human beings are a stubborn race. We will sit comfy and suck up all the resources around us and live in a comfy lifestyle until the cows come home or some affliction; losing a job, moving home because of family crisis, sickness.. atheists look at God as the marvellous, nay miraculous cure all of everything but they forget to take that off the paper and try to apply it ubiquitously across the board, When one does one soon finds out that stopping all injustice and horrendous crimes would change our physical laws forever and it would be a much bigger job and it would ruin our chances to come to God of our own free decision. Our own free decision is so very important because love is the issue. "Love the lord your God with all your heart... how can we do this when he is our jail keeper, whisking people around the planet on the whims of their evil yetzer hara nature?
IF atheists really look objectively and without bias at their beliefs they are more ludicrous than some of the christian beliefs.
Btw, hell is a catholic invention to control the masses. God does not send people to hell... john 3:16.. god sent his son... whosoever believes.. would not perish... perish means to be destroyed fully, completely.gosh, now I am learning again, how can I leave?
God did physically enforce his laws in the old covenant OT: HE was the Lawman (sos)... but in the new, he chose to let us play it out.. our way perhaps? but with a choice to call on him.. doesn't mean he is overlooking anything..
Actually, yes. I didn't have any options when I had a heart attack, but before going back for follow up visits I made sure that he was far from a novice in the cardiac field.
When I had a crystalens implant put into my eye, the doctor I chose had done more implants (by a large margin) than anyone within 500 miles. And not from his words, either - the company that sells those lenses provided the information.
I don't want to guess with my life, physical or otherwise. I don't want to make unwarranted assumptions without evidence. I much prefer to know, where the word means more than a desire that it be true.Wilderness.. I can respect that. please believe though I might not convince some people on this post, God is very real to me. if they disagree with me or where I stand then we just have to disagree. One day it will all be proven for each and every one. One thing I learned of the roughest of fishermen and roustabouts on Bristol Bay.. They almost to the last one have told me , and I asked many.. the most common answer was "I can't see God, but I know he is there." Some have said "I know he's real, because I have felt his strength and he's given me wisdom and answers that I did not have within myself." they have claimed to me "l know God exists, because evil exists.". Science can't quite put a rope around that.., but they try. plato, freud and others.. and the modern physiologies.. they try really hard.. but some people put a sign out; whether they see it or not, that " I don't want proof"...and no wise person will ever waste his time to try to convince someone who has said within himself "there is no God." though a man scream at God, and say "kill me right now if you are real", and a tree fall on his head, and he die, that man will not accept, but he will be dead nonetheless, and in judgement God would only have to say, "hey I only did what you asked." quoting someone else here, men can be very ignorant and arrogant.. I'm sorry if I said anyone was ignorant. that is not my purpose in being on this forum.. everyone has some intelligence. some just choose not to believe. in that some of us disagree. The Bible says "ye do well if you believe.. the devil also believes and trembles." But the devil isn't save nor is he going to be saved. If anyoone though doesn't want the Ark to be discovered or proven, its lucifer.. the deciever.. its says ---2Cr 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
God is not blinding anyone , but the god of this world is. Jesus also said in the gospels, blessed are those who have seen me and believe, but more blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe.
I do not know how to prove the Gospel to anyone that has a closed mind to it. Or that requires proof in a specified way that by its own logic denies the existence of an intelligent creator, yet demands everyone to live by intelligence such as some seem to do on this forum.. sounds kinda simple minded and wishy washy.. .. but let me ask YOU one more question before I bow outa here.. if you were found out at a campsite, stricken with a stroke , or symptoms, and drug into a strange hospital, or clinic, and they engaged to operate on you before you could affirm thier credentials, or perhaps you were so badly ill that you couldn't tend to that task prior to being saved, what then? would you deny that you were well? recovered? ( I know these are hypothetical) but do you get my point? would you scream foul! or pursue a lawsuit as some ambulance chasers do today, in case something goes wrong? or would you appreciate the humane sincere efforts of others to save you? All you would have at that point would be circumstantial evidence, correct? you would just have to accept then, that you are recovered, or? I'm interested to know..I understand that your God is very real to you as well, and that to take that away would be to take away a part of what makes you you.
That God isn't real to me, and I don't think He's real to the universe either, but that needn't and shouldn't affect you.That is highly unlikely and is a claim made by every believer of pretty much every religion for their particular god. God is no more real for you than the invisible purple dragon living in my garage is for me.
Baloney. One does not lead to the other. Evil can exist without the need for gods.
That would be good evidence for their intelligence.
No, there would be documented evidence of everything that occurred. No, I don't get your point.then , by your own thinking, there are no opposites. >>>>>>I<<<<<<
Man. Man would be evil's master. Or it's subject, take your choice.
Evil is not a living organism, nor even in inanimate object. It is a construct of mans mind, a name given to actions mankind finds wrong somehow. And no, there are no actions that intrinsically wrong; at one time or another man has found every conceivable thing right (and wrong for that matter).
Wow, from where do you draw such silly conclusions?
No way! You have an invisible pet purple dragon, too?
Waahh! I want one! Mine's just a dirty gray, and not pretty at all.
I have a small visible orange one. We pretend he's a dog so as not to upset the neighbours.
this made me laugh so hard I snorted my soda.
Careful, you can tell by his eyes he can go off at any moment and certainly doesn't like snorted soda. I will attempt to shield him from your comments.
please do...I wouldn't want to tempt the wrath of your drag....er...dog.....dog.
Evil could exist without God, but God points the way to goodness, which might not be easily found if not for God as the hearts of men were wicked and a flood was used ... We put to much onice on our society being so very much like theirs, which is rubbish.
Your ridiculous and obvious contradictions are so blatant, it's laughable.
If genocide is God's goodness, I certainly want no part in it.
You do not take into consideration anything vital to making the right conclusion. You do not understand the primitive violence of those times and that war was a way of life. You do not understand the seriousness of the situation or of Gods protective love for His people. You totally skip over what is going on now with God and the planet and You understand nothing of what you debate and therefore as you have proven by your posts, no debate exists.
have many nice daysThe great man with understanding, you?
You have no understanding of science, your comments lack logic and your morals are primitive, if not barbaric.You know nothing( or can't think) outside a book written by fanatic bandits which you believe with all abandon, which you rationalize and justify as you want, and say who ever didn't do or think as you did, do not know anything, and you accuse me of lack of understanding, great! And this is the great christian love and humility. Sick!
"Gods protective love for His people"
Which god, which people? How many gods are there?
God's people? Then whose are the rest? Who created them?
If you have two children and one of them didn't obey you and could think for himself, would you kill him?
I think you would, as you would only want puppets and you can protect the puppet from the other.
Or are you a priest? Then it is understandable that you accuse anybody who threaten your profession with lack of understanding. It is then, to your best interest, to keep as many people in the dark as possible.Lack of understanding is obvious it doesn't take a diploma to see it.
"Gods protective love for his people" then you ask which god, which people, clearly shows you rationalize and justify as you want, because i thought we were talking about the God of the bible and then you throw that line out. hmmm.
If you want to discuss the God of the bible then to say that i cant think outside of the book of the God of the bible is rather silly isn't it. We really can't discuss God without including the bible since it is the God of the bible we are discussing.
Sorry to have hit a nerve with you, but you need to understand that reasons are not excuses and data provided by the bible tempers conclusions.
Elaboration does not keep people in the dark.
Puppets are not intrinsically important they are instrumentally important and there is a big difference. Intrinsic has more value than instrumental as intrinsic comes from the heart as does people not wanting to hear elaboration.which god & bible? the jeweish or the xtian v2.0? and WHICH translation???
point is, this is about the HISTORICAL VALUE of the bible, and for that, quoting the bible to prove the bible is useless -- what evidence can u present that the flood is historically true""Gods protective love for his people" is your words.
http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/107285? … ost2290365
I quoted it to tell you to which comment I am responding. I thought you could recognize your words, my bad.
Discuss about the god of the bible? Why we need to include the bible? What made you think that the jewish invention is better than all. Just because the barbaric jews said they had a barbaric deity to protect them and just because you choose to believe those people, doesn't make it true. Elaboration is what keep people in dark. You elaborated the words to mean as if it mean something else, while in truth your god did a most barbaric and idiotic act and called it love. You want to caonceal that act in poetic and meaningless language.A woman shot a burglar in the face and killed him. Kudos to the woman. God destroys people who want to kill his people and you condemn Him.. hmmm.
Idiotic act.
A person throws himself in the path of an oncoming bus to push a child out of the way. Kudos to the person.
God protects his people from an egyptian army under order by penalty of death to get those hebrews back and you condemn him.
Meaningless language indeed.
Now that's laughable, you are truly comedic
The blinding that God does is a blinding by UNrevelation. God does not reveal because "their hearts were hard" and they had no place for truth.
If we look at 2 cor 3:14 "but their minds were blinded" 2 cor 3 talks about this blinded state of Gods people and vs 21 says Now the lord is that spirit (that reveals) [or does not reveal]
So the blinding that God (yahweh) does is not a stick in the eye blinding but a situation of not revealing.
The word god (small g) is a translator interpretation of the same word used for God, theos.
This passage cannot be used to prove a biblical satan.
"The Bible says "ye do well if you believe.. the devil also believes and trembles." This scripture comes from the book of James who in acts 21:20 ran a compromised church (for they were zealous of the law of moses); Christ for salvation but the law for righteousness. Since the jewish nation blamed devils for every medical and bad experience they experienced we can say that James would carry this belief into his church, as all of the jewish nation believed in devils, Sooo when james says the devils believe and tremble he most probably, i believe, believed that, but James' 1/2 mosaic and 1/2 jesus blended religion does not make devils true. Devils are false and non existent and if one does the study, quite UN-new testament and old testament too, because this devil belief has some root in Egypts' religions but mostly comes from the Persian (Zoroastrian) and Babylon time of exile.
Points to ponderNo one can prove the bible to those who do not believe.
Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
Hebrews 6:5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing (as) they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Those who rail against God are impossible to convert, seeing as they rail against God every day, these are reprobates and their heart is hard.So I guess you don't believe in any of the famous conversions of people who claimed to be atheists and then became christians, like the kook Kirk Cameron, Lee Stroble, CS Lewis, etc that the famous christian apologists like to parade in front of crowd whenever possible.
you say, "somehow" ... but where are your principles and laws that premise your finding of evil?
you tripped up.. You DO recognize Evil as an unseen force, that creates negative actions. Yet you don;t pretend to understand it.. hmmmmmmmm
widerness, Jm, troubled, rad, who else? comon,,, enlighten us further.
________________________________________________________________________________________
Webster:
1evil adjective \ˈē-vəl, British often & US also ˈē-(ˌ)vil\
evil·er or evil·lerevil·est or evil·lest
Definition of EVIL
1a : morally reprehensible : sinful, wicked <an evil impulse> b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct <a person of evil reputation>
2a archaic : inferior b : causing discomfort or repulsion : offensive <an evil odor> c : disagreeable <woke late and in an evil temper>
3a : causing harm : pernicious <the evil institution of slavery> b : marked by misfortune : unluckyCan you please be more specific as to who or what you're replying to? Why do I and others have to guess what "somehow" is referring too. I'll gladly address evil when you address what your talking about.
is evil absolute? Is murder, for example, or genocide always an act of evil? What would you consider evil to be?
It is not a supernatural force, dude - it's completely subjective and has to be examined within context and culture.Yes . President Obama has mentioned the absolute evil that happened this past week.. Its real man. You can argue it any way you want but there is your event. Evil Is Real . It can take control of a person. science study or no science study. there is something inside your soul that tells you its wrong to kill your fellow man. Evil is the force that activates the trigger. what culture and context do you want to compare this to?
I'm sorry.. I'm out of here for tonight. I for one pray for those victims of the very terrible evil that just occurred.George Bush Sr. also said that atheists shouldn't be considered citizens. Just because someone says something does not make it true.
Here's the thing, Oscar, and feel free to respond tomorrow when you have time.
Would you Consider Hitler's actions to be evil?
Nevermind the fact that Hitler claimed to be a catholic. If murder is absolutely evil all of the time, and genocide is even more so - how did the god of the bible command genocide repeatedly.
If slavery is evil, why does the bible condone it?
If rape is evil, why is the penalty to force the woman to marry her rapist - according to the "good book" anyway.
Christians believe that lying is absolutely wrong. Consider the following scenario.
You wake up in the middle of the night because someone is pounding on your door. You go to answer it, and it's your neighbor's wife, sporting a bloody nose, a black eye, and a few other injuries. You let her in and she tells you that her husband beat her to a bloody pulp. Soon, your door is being pounded on again. You tell her to wait, and you go to answer it. It's her husband. He demands to know where his wife is. Do you do what the bible commands and tell the truth - or do you lie and tell him that you don't know to protect an innocent life?
Evil is subjective, and it's relative. It is not a supernatural "force" that possesses people or causes things to happen.JM.. I'm glad that you still believe in right and wrong ... ther is another alternative here. whether I told him the truth or not, ( and I could ask for forgiveness, if I did (not).), I would likely at least try to constrain him, contact the police.. look here, I might NOT turn the other cheek. I would take whatever measures at my disposal to protect her.
Bush? Hitler? totally two different situations. Hitler was at least driven by evil, ( in the world I live in).. the embodiment of evil . and had a lot of power to carry out his evils.. It took the entire United States, France, England, Russia, and a few more countries to stop him, but thank God we did. ( I came back online. thanks.). let me ask you, would you have liked living in the world he was trying to create? there were a lots of followers...suggesting that evil beliefs are indoctrinable. Lucifer / Satan exists. Evil Exists.Russia moved to stop Hitler, yet Russia was a secular country, was it not? Americans DID live in the world that he was trying to create - and they stood on the sidelines refusing to get involved, regardless of the proven atrocities that were taking place - until Japan bombed us on our own soil.
There is no more proof of lucifer/satan etc than there is of your god. Although, without a satan, humans would have no need of a god to "save" them. maybe that's why god supposedly created satan in the first place, palled around with him whenever the mood struck and allowed him to torture his faithful followers at will to prove how great he was.
Would you like to live in the age of the Inquisition? the Witch Hunts? The crusades? You know, the world when christians were killing those that disagreed with their opinions on a massive scale regardless of guilt? How about through the reformation when christians were killing other christians? The bible has caused more bloodshed than any other book in history.
Take a look at the book itself. God goes out of his way to list murder in the 10 commandments, then commands his chosen people to massacre entire races. he sends bears to mutilate children because they called his prophet bald. Rape isn't so bad, really - in fact, if the woman doesn't scream loud enough - stone her. Kill disrespectful children. THAT to me is what evil incarnate would be - if evil was a being on its own."he sends bears to mutilate children because they called his prophet bald."
the 'children' is really more accurately translated 'little ones', little ones are any age under 20. Now what is not commonly known about the time in which this verse occurs, is that unwanted children were cast out or left home or became homeless, some kids were just rebellious, living in caves or whatever apart from towns, employment and an easy life. Many of these rejected children became rejected adults and most certainly all became beggars, robbers and thieves indeed, bandits just to survive.
Now we notice that there were 40 of them, that is quite a lot of desperate robbers, looking for a quick profit, so we have in actuality a gang situation against one man. Put yourself in that situation, 40 to one and this is no small trifle affair, this means life and death.
Calling someone baldy refers to the pagan practice of shaving the head and beard, in short, perhaps metaphorically a huge insult with even worse intentions behind it. Go up, means to worship in the high places or groves where pagans built altars to their Gods.
So we see a large gang, wanting something to make their life easier, even if it resulted in the death of another.
There are many ways that God could have handled this situation, in fact there could have been no homeless or rejected children if God .... well that's a pipe dream because we are allowed to govern ourselves and pick and choose what we do... God could have sent down fire, God could have teleported them to another country, God could have said, hey go a different way.. but bears were used, and since this is knowledgeable meat and not milk, bears were necessary for the job but i will not reveal this. If you want to look it up yourself do a study on bears in the OT.
Hitler was driven by evil?
Then was your god driven by evil when he commanded genocide?Hitler was driven by politics and the political or masonic group that put this unknown man quickly into power. Germany is in the center of europe and that put germany, at that time, smack dab in the middle of trouble. Germany could either sit and wait and watch or do something, because either way, they were gonna be in the war whether they liked it or not.
Remember coca colas debut on the american scene, laced with cocaine. It is purported that germany, in order to rouse their people to a state of excitation, also introduced cocaine to the populace, unawares, just as in america.
So we have some interesting information about germanys position and of course the ones who would worry the most would be the politicians, who, may have been masonic, like so many of the presidents of the united states.
As to God commanding genocide, it is a very acute decision confronting some important issues at those times. The book of joshua depicts quite vividly the war that went on to possess the promised land. God said, wipe them out and the reason for this was because the hebrew people at that time, would have been plagued by war continuously - as war was a way to wealth and prosperity and land ownership - in those primitive times of an UNcivilized world. Also, God was concerned with the hebrews being influenced by the pagans who worshipped so many sundry gods.
Love, wears many hats. Protection love is only concerned with protecting what it considers worthy of protection and will cross lines and go to extremes to ensure the safety and prosperity of those it is concerned with.
Just two aspects for your consideration.Wow. So the Hebrews committed genocide (under God's instruction) because they didn't want the rightful owners of the land they stole to ever come back for it.
Maybe the Palestinians have it right after all.God owns the planet. It is all Gods land. There are no rightful owners except the land that is given by God. They did not steal the land. They did not do anything that any other nation would do to them or each other. Do you think the whole world was peaceful until the hebrews left egypt. lol.
All except the Hebrews are scums and killing them is a glorious act! Hitler, may be god wanted Hitler to do the same act, as with Jesus he changed his mind about Hebrews!
The sick psychotic who treated people like scum and killed them, killing his own son/body is understandable, but to claim that this fellow loves humans is nauseating. And to think that there are some people depraved enough to justify this atrocious behavior is sickening.
killed his own son.... the body God created is more to the term. God told Mary she was to conceive messiah. Did mary own messiah? No. Was He her son? No. Instead of God allowing Joseph to father Jesus, God fathered Jesus. Mary knew her place. Incubator. "woman, what have i to do with thee?" John 2:4
Without getting into too much depth here, a body was needed both to die and to be resurrected. So where is this atrocious behavior of killing if then to resurrect? You clearly do not understand this importance.
When we get back to 4,000 yrs ago you seem to marvel at how barbaric things were and omgosh, you got something right! In the "old west" for example, they were called lawless times, no sherriff, the indians were slaughtered by the white man who brought slaves from africa. Finger pointing sucks doesn't it. The only difference here is that you choose to blame a holy God. A God who worked all things out for the better. He brought laws to the Hebrews and told them how to prosper in ridiculous ways, fallow the ground every 7th year... why would He even bother with that unless He cared. Sabbath rest.. what? Few other Gods in time, if any, devoted so much effort into prospering their societies in fact, many Gods were much more feared than yahweh or Jesus. Zeus had this nasty habit of lightning bolt target practice. Balak wanted babies on his heated metal idol. Societies back in those barbaric times offered human sacrifice, but i don't see you up in arms about that.
hate eats a person up. I fear your plate is just about empty.no one's up in arms because it wasn't part of the discussion - no one said other gods weren't barbaric - i'll clarify for you - the OT god is just one of many mythical beings that are not the best models for ethics or morals
brotheryochanan wrote: "I fear your plate is just about empty."
The same arrogance displayed by your foolish god!
brotheryochanan wrote: "hate eats a person up"
So be careful. Just because you feel hate towards anybody who oppose your views, doesn't mean everybody else feels so. That is, do not project yourself to others and do not "hate" others because they can think and think differently .
brotheryochanan wrote: "4,000 yrs ago you seem to marvel at how barbaric things were and omgosh,"
4000 years ago people were barbaric, so god choose to be barbaric? That is good, if your children are unruly you too become one!
brotheryochanan wrote: "So where is this atrocious behavior of killing if then to resurrect?"
Why the body to be killed and resurrected? If one can resurrect at will, what is so great about death? We call that sleep. What about the persecutions, was that too an act?
brotheryochanan wrote:"A God who worked all things out for the better. He brought laws to the Hebrews and told them how to prosper in ridiculous ways, fallow the ground every 7th year... why would He even bother with that unless He cared. Sabbath rest.. what? Few other Gods in time, if any, devoted so much effort into prospering their societies in fact, many Gods were much more feared than yahweh or Jesus"
Are you writing seriously or comically? Hebrews brought laws for themselves and the wise-men of them who brought the laws attributed it to god, so that people obey them.
How many gods are there? Are they like the Greek gods, with infighting?
Prospering societies? You are forgetting that there were great civilizations before and after that. In fact Chinese and Indian cultures were more peaceful, prosperous and continues than the Jewish.,oh this is gonna be lengthy.
brotheryochanan wrote: "I fear your plate is just about empty."
The same arrogance displayed by your foolish god!
Nice assumption. I can read the anger in that persons post and now yours but i assure you my matter of fact style of posting is without arrogance or hatred, it is my style when dealing with uninformed rebuttals. Arrogance is too easy a label quickly placed.
brotheryochanan wrote: "hate eats a person up"
So be careful. Just because you feel hate towards anybody who oppose your views, doesn't mean everybody else feels so. That is, do not project yourself to others and do not "hate" others because they can think and think differently.
Again thanks for the assumption. I feel no hate mostly what i feel is well, not hate perhaps sadness. I enjoy good solid debate, fact here, fact there but never does hubpages commentary meet this easy mark. In fact my succinct points are steadily portrayed. My short quips are less than what i receive. You assume i hate. Hate is a very strong word.
brotheryochanan wrote: "4,000 yrs ago you seem to marvel at how barbaric things were and omgosh,"
4000 years ago people were barbaric, so god choose to be barbaric? That is good, if your children are unruly you too become one!
No i don't but if those same barbarians want to take over my town by force i may have to fight in a battle. If my neighbors are warlike i may have a nice tall fence and a gun in the drawer. If we look at the book of joshua you might find this entry enticing:
Joshua 10:11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.
Why is this in here? Its one of many examples of you can't play nice with mean people and that God spared his people from killing those who would kill them as those others would also kill anyone else for gain as was the way it was way back then.
brotheryochanan wrote: "So where is this atrocious behavior of killing if then to resurrect?"
Why the body to be killed and resurrected? If one can resurrect at will, what is so great about death? We call that sleep. What about the persecutions, was that too an act?
The dying on the cross equates the OT sacrifice of death to impeach sin, the main focal point of Christs dying. To merely raise without a death is well, not a raising at all. To not have a death and say there is one is well, lying. The resurrection is the crux of Jesus mission, hence a body WAS NEEDED. A public execution openly showing that there was a death and then openly resurrecting is proof of God and fulfillment of the OT law.
brotheryochanan wrote:"A God who worked all things out for the better. He brought laws to the Hebrews and told them how to prosper in ridiculous ways, fallow the ground every 7th year... why would He even bother with that unless He cared. Sabbath rest.. what? Few other Gods in time, if any, devoted so much effort into prospering their societies in fact, many Gods were much more feared than yahweh or Jesus"
Are you writing seriously or comically? Hebrews brought laws for themselves and the wise-men of them who brought the laws attributed it to god, so that people obey them.
That is your opinion but the fallow ground example shows that God placed the laws because God also said the following in keeping with this 7th year fallow ground command:
Leviticus 25:21 Then I will command my blessing upon you in the sixth year, and it shall bring forth fruit for three years.
Pretty ballsy for mere man to say. But i already said this and you seemed to have skipped over it.
How many gods are there? Are they like the Greek gods, with infighting?
We can answer this by saying, there are lots of gods. Many have come and gone, Some remain. What answer are you looking for? Are they (the other gods) like Greek gods? no. With infighting? Umm i suppose so. lol. The Greek gods were very much flesh, they mated with humans, had many attributes of humans, lust etc. The Greek gods were not spiritual entities that had a concern for humankind, when they interfered with humankind it was often for their own sensual and selfish pleasure, unlike the God of the bible. Hope that helps a bit.
Prospering societies? You are forgetting that there were great civilizations before and after that. In fact Chinese and Indian cultures were more peaceful, prosperous and continues than the Jewish.,
I do not forget that but this is not by decree of their gods. They sacrificed to their gods to obtain favor of their gods. The jews already had favor of their God. There are many differences between the chinese and indian cultures which by the way were not as peaceful as you think.. dynasty murders to usurp, ghengis khan and other.. hindus, caste system and you might wanna read this:
http://www.hinduwisdom.info/War_in_Ancient_India.htm
Do you want to go back 4,000 yrs to see what the india people were doing or the chinese. Who invented gunpowder. Please don't try to tell me these pockets of paradise were peaceful and even if you do, the situations are not the same. These other people were not leaving to go somewhere else, if they had their histories would have been different, but they were violently aggressive as well, every war is.I missed the point about the persecution but i need more elaboration. Who persecuted whom.
Would it have been evil to kill/murder Hitler? Was it evil to fight and kill Hitler's forces? We train our military to murder and give them permission, is that evil?
Thou shalt not kill (actually murder is the correct word)
God gave laws to his people and the above was one of them. Now God did not give laws, like the above, as a blanket rule covering all situations, that would be ridiculous to think that. So this law must be personalized and woven into the experience of the individual to define the parameters of this law themselves. The Hebrews and Jewish peoples went overboard trying to figure it out as a nation, when the spirit of the law was intended that each define for themselves.
There are obvious situations where only murder can resolve a situation, that's fact. Is God unaware of that? Not at all. When it comes to war and protecting oneself from invading armies then yes protection is good but should everyone protect or join the army?
I believe that before a christian join the army he pray good and long before doing so, as God may have other plans for his life.
Try to avoid killing and lying and hurting people as much as possible and pray that you do not end up in situations that require murder to be the only solution.That's most interesting. Let me ask where in your bible it says that Gods laws don't cover all situations? Or did you make that part up on your own to appease your conscience?
Why do you ask that? It is most interesting that this is not what i said. I make nothing up to appease my own conscience, unless you mistake my conclusions that don't make sense to you as a way of my appeasement or did you flippantly put that sentence in there to... naw... too easy.
Looking at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil for what it is, a mental food, I would say evil and good are only what someone disliked or liked and enticed others to do the same. Looking at what is supposed to be god's name YeHoVeH with the meaning of I AM THAT I AM, it tells me neither good nor evil are actual but cultivated beliefs of the different cultures. Because I recognize karma controlling reincarnation causes everything consider evil or good done to any living being by another to have been done or shall be done to the lifeforce performing the acts as they incarnate(d) in the exact same body. Life is a repetitious learning process for lifeforces which follows the exact same actions continually, the only differences is the lifeforces in the bodies evolves until they become angels and move to the next plane.
there is no more proof of this than there is to support christianity
So long as anyone rejects anything instead of reasoning to determine meanings they will never find proof because they don't want to accept it. When one is objectively searching for truth they don't reject anything until they have found no comprehensible meaning to it. I fit the latter group and is supposing you fit the first. I'm not speaking about the things in the Bible from the perspective of Christianity but as an independent and objective reasoner seeking truth.
The reason it's called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
is because for each season tree grows the more fruit it bears per season; it's called knowledge because it's not something eaten with the mouth but the mind [ever hear of food for thought?] therefore it's a metaphor to explain how man came to the belief in good and evil, through mental conditioning.
If you disagree, verbally prove me erroneous.again, I don't have to prove you wrong. you're making a lot of interpretations about the bible and genesis that aren't supported in or mentioned in the text itself. You're making positive claims. It's up to you to back them up. That's logic 101.
I've given you logical reasoning based on the self-reproducing environment, scientific findings, what we know about man and what is written in scriptures, to a reasoning mind that's proof, to people who don't want to believe a thing anyway there is no way of proving it, therefore, we'll agree to disagree.
your science is at best spotty, and basing your claims on scripture is not reasoning, it's faith
But the Hebrews 11:1 KJV Bible says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" which makes faith the science of finding evidence and substance to justify one's believing anything scriptural. In that light, what you know about science must also be spotty sine it requires finding evidence and substance to support a supposition.
I would not in a thousand years have thought I would ever see a believer quote the bible in an effort to define faith as a science. Guess you learn something every day.
I don't believe the Bible as the word of god like Christians do, I believe it because I've experienced a new birth with a testimony of a new conception, gestation, trivial, birth, babyhood, childhood and now a 27 year adolescent who is expecting to soon obtain the powers Jesus is supposed to have demonstrated (John 14:12). In living what I believed I discovered faith is a science rather than a blind belief. I have chosen to discipline myself as Jesus was, to the father within himself, and that's a science and more. I have a website on my profile, I didn't see it though, which reveals a lots of the things neither medical nor physical science can teach us because of my experiences. So, I'm saying faith is a science because of my experiences.
it's hard to conduct a rational discussion when you continue to show you lack any clue to the difference between faith & science; quoting random bible verses has NOTHING to do with science
I see you have not proven that to find sub stance and evidence to prove a belief is not science either, it's the same as developing a hypothesis then searching for facts to prove it, they are the same thing so we'll have to agree to disagree which will cause you not to be able to communicate rationally with me. So be it.
the problem is that the "bible" does not constitute facts or evidence. You want some biblical science? The bible states that the sun stood still so Joshua could slaughter an entire group of people in the span of a single day. Here's the thing - the sun always stands still. It's the earth that moves.
The bible also says that bats are birds.
And that the earth has four corners - which is why only four gospels were included in the cannon.
It also says the entire earth was wiped out in a flood (hence the topic of this forum) which science has shown never happened.
that (and more) is the science of the bible.One must remember the writers of the Bible didn't have the scientific knowledge nor many of the words we have today so they used terms they had to describe an unknown. The standing still sun is explainable using 2 of the cigar shaped UFOs, one to block out the setting and rising sun until it reached the same area of the sky it began to block it while another one illuminated the battlefield from the setting sun's position until the about the same time the next day the blocking began.
Without the precise instruments and technology we have today primitive man would assume since they fly bats are are birds.
It is possible to station some thing or one at 90 degrees from each other in a line around the earth and consider it four corners although it is round.
As for the flood, I doubt that it was literal but is a metaphor of how the whole world came to be civilized.
Thus, most of the Bible's events, weather they happened or not, are metaphors or prophetic types of something else. Therefore, the science to reading the Bible is to first determine what the symbols mean, what the metaphors are pertaining to and them put them together to paint a picture of the events of the earth. That require a basic knowledge of science, math, history, the self-reproducing environment and man's nature.I have a lot of problems with your post, but I'll start with this. I've heard the "metaphor" argument before, and it seems to be nothing more to me than special pleading. Who determines what's literal - and what's a metaphor? What are their qualifications and why can't biblical scholars seem to agree?
exactly - creationists want it both ways -- they claim the bible is scientific when they do a special interpreation of a nebulous pjhrase [usually after 2 or 3 translations],, but then hide behind 'metaphor' when they're challenged ion the bible's numerous inaccuracies [in history, physics, geography, biology, etc]
i know.. wilderness. its seems hard ... but just think how much BETTER it would be proven, and how much better it would be kept recorded and how much more good it would do all over the world with the scientific minds like yours and rad's and troubled's and cascoly and others.. on board and getting it together..
btw.. I was going to ask why all the scientists are alwasy fussing and in disagreement over scientific principles, or arguments of?
My greatest and most ignored argument FOR both scientists and for Bible Scholars and archeologist's. that what we "discover" already happened. Its done... Momma already made the baby and you ain't agonna change the outcome.. only the "beleif of what happened".
I respect GREATLY those who realize this and are respectful; whichever side they happen to be on..T. O. N. B. you are a pretty sharp bean.. and a different angle.. thanks for not being so stereotypical. I'm not so sure its all about WHICH view is the most right on this forum. It serves its own purpose of making each of us think.. ( I think)
Science is all over the bible. but its not for the simple minded to understand.. the professor of the bible has made it into formulas and used simplistic tools of discovery that most children understand..
that might be why you guys are missing it.. Jesus said, "Except you become as a little child"!
I AM reminded of Captain _______________?
Somewhere it also says that he used the simple things , in order to confuse the wisdom of the (self) wise.
there ARE a lot of experiments listed in the bible.. to test certain things, to prove certain things, to multiply solid substance.. the bread and fish of the little boy to feed five thousand..
But this professor and master scientist does not need modern day credentials in order to practice. He operates inside and outside of space, time, and substance..
what ya got better than that? a purple pet dragon? yeah.. go on..
its sad when scientists??? have to revert to imaginary dragons.. I'd rather go for the real ones.
yeah, I know that was a little cold.. but I'm trying to build a fire with a couple of stones out here.now I just can't take you seriously. I was hoping to have an actual discussion with you, but you've removed any layer of respect that I was starting to semi-build for you.
If the truth be known, the Bible is only a primitive explanation of man-on-earth's existence, what today's science and technology would produce told in metaphors, allegories, parables and symbol/types (MAPS).
Cascoly; does citing random theory that hangs on the ledge of an unprovable explosion that supposely happened at some well speculated point in time?
Hi Jm.. I forgot you were there.. sorry man.. I knew I was missing someone.. I DO look forward to your posts.. You do have a lot of information and things to make us think.
JMcFarland,
Here are some examples of detecting metaphors.
KJV Genesis 1:14 gives us the moon, stars and sun are for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years with the signs suggesting to look at them as a means of determining the plight of man on earth Thus, we're to look at the events on earth as happening in cycles with with 2 major times like mornings and evenings and 2 short transitions between them and something happens in quarters like the seasons of the year. Therefore, we are to get out of the straight line approach to existence, instructed in metaphor.
Genesis 1 suggest man, fish, birds and animals were made by speaking, then Genesis 2:7-18 suggest they all were formed from the earth, chapter 1 say both genders were man made together while 5:1-2 say both genders were called Adam but in 2:21-23 say the girl -- egg producer of man making prepubescence children to be called man-child (Revelation 12:5) -- was made from the boy's --sperm producer of man -- rib in an operation and Adam renamed them both woven from man or woman meaning this new less than the Bigfoot specie. Because 2:7 says Adam was formed from the earth why would he be told a man must leave {parents} in 2:24 except he was born and the whole scenario of Adan is a metaphor of the beginning of civilization which the flood was it becoming earth wide?
Does that show you ho to determine metaphors from supposed facts?
Gtyui,
Above JMcFarland asked me how to detect metaphors from supposed facts in the Bible and that's some examples of how I determined them to be metaphors, using logical reasoning.Okay, but the flood is not Biblically portrayed as a metaphor. The supposed sun standing still is not portrayed as a metaphor. They are portrayed a factual, historical events that took place - but they never did.
exactly - this is the problem bible literalists face - mist christians regard the entire genesis story as myth / metaphor and therefore have no trouble acceptiong both their faith and evolution. but if you claim parts of the bible are loterally true, and other parts are metaphor, it becomes entirely subjective
Not necessarily entirely subjective.
I saw satan fall as lightning ... metaphor
john 3:16 literal
Noah flood Literal
genesis 3 allegorical
Its like someone who is reading a book about mathematical algebra and hasn't learned or experienced algebra. It takes some time to discern what is going on. Bible is no different.
Many bible critics really don't understand what the bible is talking about and that is plainly evident by what they try to purport as truth or confusion or subjective. The bible is not complicated to those who have learned how to read it and God reveals to those who seek. Seek does not mean to merely ask.Are you Yahweh or jesus to decide which part is literal and which one allegorical?
LOL
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Deuteronomy 4:2
Save me a seat by the fire cousin.other bible readers would grade those differently - it's NOT like algebra - one is science, the other is literature/faithtext/myth
you display quite an arrogant view - YOUR interpretation is correct and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong
- brotheryochananposted 12 years ago0
Science has stated 'Pangaea' existed (one continent only), science says the continents broke apart. Science has shown that all the tectonic plates fit very comfily together without twisting and turning them - On a smaller planet.
The bible says the heavens broke apart and from a firmament down came the rain.
Now scientists have agreed that water surrounding our planet would decrease cosmic rays.
Our oceans are filled with salt water, rain is fresh water. If a tantamount rain covered all the earth then our oceans would be so very diluted if not replaced by fresh water.
If we look at Noahs flood and understand the metaphoric use of 'earth' as meaning a generalized area and world meaning 'the world that they knew of' - the earth was circumnavigated by Christopher Columbus - then we can understand a bit more the difficult task of translating ancient documents.
If we look at the middle east we notice that it is a large basin, residing some 2,000 feet below sea level.
If we use the Himalaya mountains as a 'high point reference' we may well be mistaken about how high the waters covered the known world at that time.
If we allow for a splitting apart of the continents and our planet enlarging we can see how the water would drain out of this basin and our small planet now larger can accommodate more 'fresh' water and we can allow for higher mountains ranges like our Himalayas today.
If we claim the flood of noah covered all the earth, 'proper', than we cannot account for gilamesh's secular attestation to a large flood or other accounts.
Yes i believe in noahs flood. Jesus mentioned "in the days of Noah" and that is very concrete substantiation that the flood occurred.The charlatans who wrote Jesus story were historians?
Who will give concrete substantiation that this Jesus fellow ever lived?After studying the bible and knowing God, I refuse to enter into discussions about substantiation that Jesus ever lived.
If you can't figure it out. I could fill this whole page.
Good luck with this.After studying Harry potter my 10 year old niece refuse to enter into discussions about substantiation that Harry Potter ever lived. But I know that she will out grow and mature to see fiction as fiction, though I can't say the same about everybody.
Good luck with thisOf course you won't because you can't substantiate it. Simple, really.
If a person will obey the teachings of said Jesus weather or not he lived is not important, your proving or disproving the truth of his alleged teachings make it unnecessary for him to have lived.
The main reason, I have never heard of it, if someone provide me its teachings and I determine there may be some reality to them I will.
So it is simply this ' I obey those teachings which I like and discard others and I want everybody to obey the teachings I like or they will be in hell'?
No! After objectively reasoning with the concepts, turning them every way I can conceive of to determine if they're metaphors or direct, I either follow them or put them in my to be proven file.
Isn't that what I said? You took what you liked and discarded the rest and is asking everybody to follow what you liked.
[b]Don't you know the difference between liking and reasoning to an conclusion?
Reasoning? You acted out and found some is good for you. Some you found you cannot act out.
But how do you determine that which is good for you is good for others?
And according to your own admission there are impractical things too.
So if you follow only a few then how do say you follow bible?
Did you try every other book that gave advises?I reasoned to determine what various outcomes I may encounter and how many I was willing to accept prior to deciding to act, or I would not have acted.
I determine what will benefits all man through reasoning that our existences have the same origins -- be it creationism or evolutionism -- and states of being -- conditioned into us by others wanting to control us which begin so young that we were not able to reason ourselves out of it without help from some outside source.
What I said was I followed the the teachings and lifestyle the gospels indicate Jesus lived and taught; that gave me 24 hours a day to contemplate life (Psalm 1) and the answers revealed themselves to me.
I had read some of the other scriptures prior to embarking on this life in 1976 and once I began it I discovered all writings held sacred or scriptures and writings have the same way of life somewhere in them although in different terms.
Sorry, but the facts do not allow for an enlarging of the planet. There is no evidence that this occurred, and no possible mechanism for it to occur.
Like the Biblical flood, the enlarging planet is fiction.Yes, there is evidence. Best guess as to the moon's formation is that a collision occurred with another, smaller planet. While much of the debris from the collision ended up in space and coalesced into the moon, there was a considerable net gain in mass for the earth. It grew in size.
Of course, that happened long before any life was present (the earth was mostly molten at that time), but the earth did grow in size.
In addition, every time an asteroid falls to earth, the earth gains mass. True, the change is minute (I would hate to write all the zeros in the percentage size change) but it does change.
I would be more questioning of the idea that the entire middle east is a basin at 2,000 below sea level. The lowest point on earth is the dead sea, at 1312 feet below sea level, and it certainly doesn't occupy the entire near east.Wilderness,
What you provided is only a supposition, not evidence. When we look at time as the measurement of cycles which should put us in the frame of mind that cycles governs everything in existence which would make many things considered to be illusions based on the straight line approach to existence. Existence is so precise in it's formation that no major bodies will ever collide with another.Of course. The major asteroids that collided with Jupiter, the pock marking all over the moon and the dinosaur killer in the gulf of Mexico are no indication that large bodies collide.
We also fully understand that cycles, not gravity, control the movement of the planets and other bodies.
You might take a hard look at the evidence concerning the formation of the moon before declaring that it is only supposition, that it never did and never could have happened.I have looked at the assumed by scientist concepts forming the moon by asteroids supposing to have made the pock markings all over the place. Since no man is alive who can verify what did therm that's no valid proof, they only suggest to me that that's a possibility and not facts. I, personally, can't believe there is any room in existence for major collisions.
That's my story and I'll stick to it until I'm able to find more substantial evidence, however, it's still in my to be proven memory bank.Here is a recording of it occurring: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/sc … rsporadic/
As always, it comes down to what you (or I or anyone else) will accept as evidence or "proof".
The evidence of asteroid collisions today is incontrovertible, but of course that doesn't say anything about them yesterday. We didn't see thousands hit the moon, just the results that we attribute to collisions. There could be a thousand other explanations for those pock marks, ranging from ET to buried life digging through the soil to solar flares.
In a technical sense, then, there can be no proof as the past cannot be observed. In a practical sense we must choose the most likely cause for those pock marks and either accept it as proof or proclaim that we can never know what happened in the past if we did not observe it directly.
Of course, the latter decision will eliminate any reason to every study the past - any study of tectonic plates, archeology, dinosaurs or other creatures from the past are all a moot question as we weren't there to see it happen. We weren't there, and there were no survivors to report the incident, so we don't know that Krakatoa ever blew up. We don't know that the Bonneville flood out of Utah happened or that there was an ice age in North America.
besides the obvious problem than the splitting of continents & rise of the Himalaya took place MILLIONS of years before any alleged global flood
No evidence? i just told you that if we shrink the planet then the tectonic plates line up perfectly. ... that's all you need and its all i needed to know.
No possible mechanism? What are you doing this thread? lol.first, there's no need to 'shrink the planet' - the continents WERE connected many millions of years ago - LONG before the flood. so even if your theory held water, it all happened millions of years before any humans and anynoah's flood occurred.
we have scientific evidence for the age of the earth, plate tectonics, human evolution, etc. if you choose not to believe it, your saying so doesn't negate those FACTS
you have yet to present ANY evidence that corroborates the bible's myth of global floodI hope you are not confusing facts with theories. See dictionary.com for a definition of theory and discover theories are not facts.
human evolution, i hope you are not gonna place darwin in front of me again, that's debunked.
if you want a fact how about the moons ever so slight shift away from the earth. The moon is gaining greater distance away all the time. If we move the earth back 30 million years approx that puts the moon in the center of the earth.
When it comes to the age of the earth, ponder this.. when you buy a car and it says year 2,000 on it you may be surprised to discover that the transmission was assembled in 1993, the wheels formed in 1995, the steering wheel sat in a warehouse with many others for 20 yrs. My point here is that in anything assembled there is always an indication of age.
When i put a model car together with glue that glue may have been made years prior.
If or since, we have an old universe and matter was collected from that old universe our planet is going to have a semblance of age.
As to the flood, gilgamesh and others which i would have to trace, there are four accounts in total. Nothing from north america howeveryour writing defies logic - you ASSUME any movement by the moon now has always been that way; your conclusion is false. as far as the age of the earth itself, your analogy once again defies logic since we HAVE the FACT of multiple forms of dating of the earth.
your resort to the old 'it's just a theory' nonsense just [proves how intellectually dishonest creationism is. nothing in what you write gives any evidence FOR the bible's fairy talesHe has his arrogance to prove genesis is right. Who else will "create" arrogant ones other than an arrogant, idiotic and barbaric god who always have to resort to barbaric ways to "save" human beings..
First we notice when reading genesis that the earth was created before the sun and moon on a different "day".
If we take 'evening and morning' as a literal 24hr period which at this stage in development i find doubtful to be 24hrs, because the 'evening and morning' occur in each phase of creation even before the sun and moon, which would logically/physically give an 'evening and morning'. hmmm
Therefore, my personal hypothesis up to present, is that these are the periods of time that moses was given a vision of each stage of creation by God. Day/24hr period cannot be without the sun and moon, but it can be periods of time between sleep for moses. God gave the vision of the heaven, moses wrote it down and then probably exhausted, slept. Woke up and got the second vision, wrote it down and slept etc.
If you prefer to go by day as a 24hr period we must note that H3117 in Strongs has many definitions for this word day which include; day, eon, age, year, process of time etc.
Just to clarify what i think i might be a further question, 'evening' at its root means to 'loop as in a cycle' we see cycles. Morning figuratively means, to inspect, care, consider. I would not want to have been a translator for genesis at all.
I prefer "eon or age to create and keep in the cycle by inspection" but now i get way over your head, since you missed that there was even a period of time between the earth and moons creation. This period of time, proccess or passage of time could have been eons.
Summary:
In the case of our discussion about the moon, suffice it to say, the earth was created first and then the moon. The period of time between the two probably being a long time. It is important that their is a difference of time between the earth and moon creation to allow for mathematical correctness about its retreating away from us. To state that the moons shift away from us has been constant throughout the moons' history as being our asteroid is i think, speculation.
arrogantly yours,
Brotheryochanan
Sorry for the brevity but i expect i will get a chance to speak more on this topic as the ravens swoop in. lol.
Good luck with thisReally? that's all i get is a poorly typed sentence.
I am glad that others get to read this then because i would dislike to think that my lol thesis was wasted on you.
"Who else will "create" arrogant ones other than an arrogant, idiotic and barbaric god who always have to resort to barbaric ways to "save" human beings"
Good thing you just popped up outta some primordial goo.. you don't have to worry about being arrogant
Ah the old moon recession creationist theory just does not work. The moon is currently at a distance of 356,700 km. That is, 35,670,000,000 cm.
The recession of the moon today is known directly, as a result of three-corner mirrors left behind by Apollo astronauts. Lunar laser ranging establishes the current rate of retreat of the moon from Earth at 3.82±0.07 cm/year.
Thus assuming a constant rate of recession, we have Earth/Moon surface contact at about 9,337,696,335 years ago, which is the right order of magnitude for estimates of the age of the Earth at 4.5 billion years.
If you want the Earth and moon to be 6000 years old, then we would need a recession of over 59 km per year, which is just silly. A 30 million year old Earth would need a recession of 12 metres per year. If that was true, I think NASA has big problems, not to mention the Earth's sea tides.The moon was not created snuggly up against the earth and that it was made after the earth.
Of course it wasn't snuggled up nicely, but the principle is proved that the Creationist argument that claims the moon is only a few thousand years old because of its recession is pure bunkum.
And how do you now figure this since you first said that mathematically:
Thus ASSUMING a CONSTANT rate of recession, we have Earth/Moon surface CONTACT at about 9,337,696,335 years ago, which is the RIGHT ORDER of magnitude for ESTIMATES of the AGE of the Earth at 4.5 BILLION years.
Do you see the contradiction here? The moon was not snuggled up against the earth yet this assumption and estimation inferring constant.... there is nothing concrete here at all. Yet this mathematics is supposed to state conclusively the age of the earth.
pure bunkum.OK brother you win, the creationist argument for recession proves a 6000 year old Earth.
Well we certainly cannot go by the mathematical solution you have displayed. Scientists always disagree in exactitude's and precision of
(f )actuality, even in the maths department.
A 6,000 yr old earth, I don't necessarily agree with.
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Peters hyperbolic statement Christians have taken literally. This is something i have never done. I don't believe in a literal 6,000yr old earth but i certainly don't agree with 4.5 billion or even 4.5 million.
I agree that some old components were used in the making of earth. I disagree with the dating processes of man. My faith in science was completely shaken the day they measured light with a new instrument and discovered something entirely different - since then all i hear of are theories and disagreements in the scientific arena about everything they conclude. The disadvantage i am at with science is that i have a hard time scrutinizing their data, but the bible data is somewhat, to me, easier to scrutinize.
The creationist report is that if the moon were 4.5 BILLION years old the moon would be way out in space by now, since we can probably agree that the moon was never snuggled up to the earths surface and must have been placed in orbit somewhere out there - due to the earths tides of course.
the moons recession envisions a young earth scenario.Which ones? Rubidium-Strontium? Uranlum-Lead? Argon-Argon? Explain why you "disagree" with them.
sure ... but i will let you do the research. Why listen to me when you can google the results. I suggest checking the questioned methods with +flaws attached in the url bar.
Thanks for the tip!
I did as you suggested, and found just what I expected - a long list of Creationist drivel using flawed logic and cherrypicked data to claim radiometric dating to be false.
I also found this wonderful piece from the NCSE that sums up all of those arguments and explains why they are flawed: http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometeric … -does-work
What a plasant surprise! I should try that more often!
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. The creationist recession theory is disproven by the actual recession of the moon. The creationists got their numbers wrong because the the actual recession does not point to a young Earth.
your numbers were certainly wrong since you stated paraphrased; that the earth snuggled up against the earth receding at such and such a rate would put the moon where it is and our earths age at 4.5 billion years.
Since the moon was created an eon, age or different stage after the earth and put into its orbit ( you mentioned tides therefore the moon must have been placed x amount of distance - perhaps closer than we think if as i say, Pangaea was a smaller planet) and judging by its recession of lets use your number of 4.5 billion years then the moon would be way out there, but it is not, at x amount of cm per year the moon is probably just where it should be next to a young earth.Can you show us your math, cousin? You do know the moon was not "created," right? How do you think the moon formed?
No cutting and pasting now....This assumes that the moon has been moving away from Earth at a constant rate. This is not the case.
It has been accelerating. Exactly what we would expect from a gravitationally-bound object. The force of gravity decreases with distance, so the recession rate of the Moon will increase as it moves further away.
This has been demonstrated by looking at ancient sedimentary rocks that formed along coastlines, which recorded the period and strength of the tides - and thus the Moon's distance from Earth. Analysis of these rocks found the recession rate 650 million years ago to have been 1.95 cm/year.
Therefore, any Creationist argument that treats the current lunar recession rate as constant is bogus.Interesting... we can't predict the age of the moon or earth from the speed at which the moon is receding and distance of the moon from earth because the speed of recession has changed because of the movement of the continents. However lets do the math anyway.
Current distance of the moon from earth in km
384,400 km = 384,400,000,000 mm
Speed of the recession of the moon per year
3.5 cm = 35 mm
Equation
384,400,000,000 mm / 35 mm = 10,982,857,141 years
So at the current rate of recession the moon would take almost 11 billion years to move from the earth to where it currently is.
Who needs math, logic or science, when you have an all powerful God's who can cherry pick form his magic book.
LOL
Why does everyone insist on snuggling the moon up to the earth?
We have 4.5 billion years and now 11 billion years to "move from earth to the where it currently is now". Anyone else got a number?
Can we assume the rate was constant? That's not what i have read.
God created the moon out there somewhere at a distance of its orbit whatever that was when He created it. 6,000 yrs times 35mm we do not come up with 11 billion years. We may just end up thinking that God created a moon up there, set it in its orbit and then it receded for years whatever the time frame, but younger earth is what any math will tell ya.The math I just did indicates an old moon. The math is irrelevant in predicting the age of the moon, but doesn't indicate a young moon as was otherwise stated.
Wikipedia:
"The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hitting the newly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around it, which accreted to form the Moon."
All evidence suggests a 4.5 billion year old moon and a 13.7 billion year old universe. The mere fact that we can see light form stars and other galaxies that are billions of light years away means the light has been traveling for billions of years. In a 6,000 or 10,000 year old universe we would most likely not see the light of any stars (but for one or two perhaps).We'd see more than that - most stars in our constellations are within a few hundred light years, so we'd see all the bright ones we know and a few thousand others.
We wouldn't see the Milky Way, though. That light wouldn't get to us for another 40,000 years, which is a pretty amazing thing to think about.Ah, we are in the milky way, but we'd only see a small portion of it.
Yes, just the unfashionable arm.
We'd know nothing of other galaxies, nor even globular clusters. We'd probably not know too many nebulae and would never have seen a supernova. We wouldn't know a thing about the expansion of the universe or the cosmic microwave background radiation or supermassive black holes.
What a boring universe it would be.
Can anyone imagine being funded by the Goverment this kind of nonsense
The Creationist Museum presents origins of the Universe, Life, Mankind and man’s early history according to the book of Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6000 years ago an over six-day period. The display shows dinosaurs like they were pets in your backyard. Young earth creationist claims, including the idea that human and dinosaurs coexisted, and the dinosaurs were in the Noah’s Ark along with the likes of T-Rex and all the other animal on the Ark were vegetarians until the boat returned back on land, then the carnivores return back to eating meat.
You would need a gun to my head, to swallow thisThe description of the boat is about half the length of a modern day cruise ship and about the length of the longest of dinosaurs. There were hundreds of different species of the long big dinosaurs and we wouldn't even get two in one boat. It baffles my mind trying to understands what happens in the minds of people who believe in a 6000 year old universe and a boat the housed every creature alive and is the only reason I frequent these forums.
That so called boat is neither here nor there, like the Shroud of Turin, it is an irrelevant relic. The only evidence necessary is when the sun appears after the rain.
not to mention that species cannot survive when the population is reduced to 2; the more you think about it, the sillier the flood myth becomes -- did noah have soyburgers to feed all the carnivores? did noah pick 2 of each insect and microorganism? were the global waters fresh, brackish or saline? how did fish survive? after the flood, how much time did noah spend resettling polar bears, lemurs and penguins?
personally i don't believe dinosaurs were ever on the ark. They may have disappeared during one of the "stages" translated 'days' in genesis. As i recall what i was taught as a youth is that first there were herb eating dinosaurs and then along came the meat eating dinosaurs, which is quite what genesis tells us. But how would Moses know about that?
God was very picky again; dinosaur’s bones were all buried by God to test the Christian faith
God said, the meek will inherit the earth or did he mean the weak minded to the will of God
Evolution is not only theory it is farce...
even this fails miserably - other than the dead sea, most of the middle east is above sealevel, and mt ararat is over 16,000' high. in addition, there is no record from the other civilizations such as the egyptians that describe a world wide flood at the alleged time of noah
you do know that all that splitting happened MILLIONS of years ago? so it has no relevance to the noah myth; and gilgamesh is just another myth itself
using the bible to prove the bible doesnt get us very far, assuming jesus even said those wordsI wish people who read these things actually understood what was being said.
what is it that you think "we" aren't understanding?
Revelation 6:13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casts her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
Revelation 6:14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
I don't believe in MILLIONS of years. Good luck with that.[color=blue]Revelation 6:13-14 has already happened, the sun becoming black is truth being obscured and the stars represent spiritual leaders who fell to the love of money. Luke 17:21 say the kingdom of heaven is within therefore the rolling up of heaven is people having tension while the mountains are religions and islands are cults/b] moving from their original location to the United States to reap the benefit of her [b]material wealth. That's only a metaphor.
I do not believe it is only a metaphor. Stars are not, if you do the study compared to people. Angels are but not stars.
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Genesis 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed AS the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; (to those who hatemonger about the war crimes of the hebrews, remember the hebrews had enemies)
Deuteronomy 10:22 Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons; and now the LORD thy God hath made thee AS the stars of heaven FOR MULTITUDE.
Nehemiah 9:23 Their children also MULTIPLY AS the stars of heaven, and brought them into the land...
Job 3:9 Let the stars of the twilight thereof be dark; let it look for light, but have none; neither let it see the dawning of the day:
Job 22:12 Is not God in the height of heaven? and behold the height of the stars, how high they are!
Psalms 8:3 When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
Psalms 136:9 The moon and stars to rule by night: for his mercy endures for ever.
Ecclesiastes 12:2 While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain:
Isaiah 13:10 For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.
Jeremiah 31:35 Thus saith the LORD, which gives the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night,
Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
Joel 2:10 The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining:
79 verses and only one dubious verse about stars being people.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Ya know ya can't build a doctrine with only one verse, especially this poetic wisdom writing verse.
Gnosticism is not my cup of tea.Go back and read the dream of Joseph (Genesis 37:9-10) the sun was his father, moon his mother and stars were his brothers is one example of stars being people. Stars are tiny lights because of their distance from earth, thus, those stars are people with tiny lights which make them ministers of the truth who fell to the love of material wealth.
Genesis 37 is not an indication of stars being people. In this Dream these symbols were used but now we need to look at the sun and moon and see if these are people too. It does not say that this was the purpose of the dream. As symbols yes you can infer that this is the case but in the over view of the bible the sun being a father and the moon being a mother does not make doctrine.
One scripture against my 37 does not a good case make.Genesis 15:12 And when the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell upon Abram;...
Genesis 15:17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark
Genesis 19:23 The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot entered into Zoar.
and his hands were steady until the going down of the sun.
Exodus 22:3 If the sun be risen upon him,
Leviticus 22:7 And when the sun is down...
Numbers 34:15 The two tribes and the half tribe have received their inheritance on this side Jordan near Jericho eastward, toward the sun rising.
Deuteronomy 4:19 And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun
Judges 8:13 And Gideon the son of Joash returned from battle before the sun was up,
2 Samuel 2:24 Joab also and Abishai pursued after Abner: and the sun went down
2 Kings 3:22 And they rose up early in the morning, and the sun shone upon the water
Job 9:7 Which commandeth the sun, and it riseth not; and sealeth up the stars.
Psalms 50:1 The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.
Psalms 72:5 They shall fear thee as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations.
Ecclesiastes 2:20 Therefore I went about to cause my heart to despair of all the labor which I took under the sun.
Isaiah 38:8 Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz
Ezekiel 32:7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light.
and more just like those..
less than 204 times (because of asunder, sundry and words like these) sun is mentioned never as a father.
I do not say so, the bible says so.If you are going to hole the bible to true then you must accept them as both, literal and metaphorical or you don't believe it at all.
I do not need to infer what is not written. The thing about interpretation.. oh thats your interpretation and comments like that is that the bible interprets itself. If God says the sun and moon are for signs and we are not to worship them then that is the interpretation of which we go by. If in the bible sun is mentioned only as a light giving orb in the sky then i cannot with clear conscience consider it as a father. This is inferrence and inferrence is wrong.
If i want to find out what the bible defines meek as; as in: the meek shall inherit the earth, look up meek and discover:
Numbers 12:3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.) I then search out moses character to discover that moses was trainable by God. He believed God and did whatever God said and this is the bible definition of meek. I cannot go ahead and infer any other definition upon meek. I cannot say cowardly, a push over, a wimp etc.
You may think your interpretation of sun = father is spiritual but it is not. It is fleshly and not backed up by bible definitions as is much of what else you say.Not only are they signs for for producing seasons, days and years but other things as well. As a matter of fact the events making things seasons, days and years are also for signs in comprehending man's plight here on earth.
I can see how the carnal mind of man can not see the purpose for the sun, moon and stars except for what is literally written, it's the only thing to make sense to them. Everyone who is BORN OF what is called GOD see how everything have integrated purposes, nothing is exactly what the carnal mind recognizes it as being but the natural mind of man can't.A typo, but the natural mind of man can't should have read because the natural mind of man can't see it
Doesn't matter about the typo. You're just wrong. Inference is a no no. The bible defines itself. We cannot read more into scripture than is what, as i showed you, clearly there.
Inference put a talking possessed snake in the garden. Made ezekiel 28 and Isaiah 14 about satan. Inference is just wrong. Inference says God is barbaric and a war monger. Inference says the NT teaches new doctrine, which it does not, it teaches another way but not doctrine.
Over spiritualization to coin a wrong phrase is just wrong.
The bible defines its word all by itself.
The carnal mind reads more into it than is already there. The spiritual mind always lines up with scripture and scripture defines itself to edify and endorse what the spirit has told it.Not when it is in according to (KJV) Isaiah 28:9-13 period.
9 Whom shall he {what is called god} teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk {the teachings of organized religion}, and drawn from the breasts {the man teachers of it}.
10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:
11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
13 But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.thats right precept upon precept, line upon line. And where do these lines and precepts come from? The bible. As i have said the bible defines itself. Your definition of sun = father is not supported by these lines and precepts you boldly stand behind, in fact, sun = father is pagan doctrine. Good luck with that.
You are out of context many times. That is inference.
If you want a good biblical definition for milk:
1 Corinthians 3:2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
Hebrews 5:12 For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:13 For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
to say that milk is the teachings of the church is inference and your private interpretation. Milk is obviously, the basic doctrines, which you will find in pretty much every church, even in our days and you will also find meat in many churches today, but to just wrap them altogether and say all churches teach milk is false by common sense standards.
If you have clear weather tonight and live in the Northern hemisphere, go out and look up. Assuming you live somewhere that isn't too light polluted, about mid-way between the Moon and the W-shaped constellation Cassiopeia you will see a faint oval-shaped cloud in the night sky.
That cloud, the Andromeda Galaxy, is 2.5 million light years away. That means the light you are seeing is from 2.5 million years in the past.
Millions of years are literally above your head right now. (Or below your feet, depending on your time zone). Denying their existence is pure foolishness.And Andromeda is our closet galaxy. There are some billions of light years away. Meaning the light have been coming for billions of years. That's a fact.
Good grief ... You said the earth was created millions of years ago and i replied to this ... i guess, sigh, i should have not assumed you would know the context. I don't believe the earth was created millions of years ago, i said nothing about the universe. God makes a new earth in revelations and why should there not be an older universe?
Sorry to have misdirected you.Oh, I see. Ok, I thank you for moving the goalposts -- I mean clarifying.
I can tell you how to find millions of years on Earth as well, but you'll need a mass spectrometer and some lasers.The new heaven and earth in Revelation is only this earth purified of all works of man here, it's not a literal new one but like new.
Look at Genesis 1:14 tell us to use the sum, moon and stars as a sign[/s] to tell our earthly plight like seasons, days and years and Ecclesiastes 1:9 saying everything happens in cycles and there is nothing new under the sun.
Look at Revelation 17:8A saying The beast {USA} that thou sawest was {at this material civilization's last ending}, and is not {at the time of writings these prophecies}; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit {depth of man's imagination}, and go into perdition {destroyed with only a slight memory}, also suggesting a cycle of vents.
Look at Revelation 6:9-11 where "the dead in Christ" who were beheaded {in old KJV} at the end of the last material civilization after the destruction of Mystery Babylon {USA} by her own nuclear weapons (Zechariah 5:1-4), as seen in Revelation 14:8 & 13, waiting to resurrect during the millennium (Revelation 20:4).
Those are only a few of the places we find the earth operates in cycles, therefore, we don't know if the earth was ever made. We need to receive the perfect (1 Corinthians 13:9 & 19) and do away with the parts most of us see, I've written what I believe to be it in Intelligent Design and Christianity discussion called A Cyclic Vision To Existence, check it out.Look at Revelation 17:8A saying The beast {USA} that thou sawest was {at this material civilization's last ending}, and is not {at the time of writings these prophecies};
So you are saying the united states of america was around during the time of rome?
I think millions of people would disagree with that.
Also when the new earth gets created is will not be in this category of under the sun. When this 'under the sun' was written it was not talking about when God finishes all things and creates a new earth. Ecc is talking about what is under the sun then. I mean, obviously car have been invented and they would be a new thing... hydro is a new thing..
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. (an after the resurrection chapter).
beheading has nothing to do with nuclear war.
I agree with cycles.. that obvious. And things will come full cycle. In that you have correctness but as for the rest, i'd rather read troubleds posts.The United States was exactly like it is today 192,000 years ago when this civilization was ending. An Obama was the president to follow a "Dubya" as president of the USA. It had not come back into existence at the time of Rome and writing of the prophecy but it but would reenter existence in 1776 and remain for a short time, less than 3000 years to become so utterly destroyed we would call it only a myth, the meaning of perdition.
The new heaven and earth is this one 7000 years after the end of this material civilization where all the works of man are eliminated off of it, completely rejuvenated like new. Nothing being done on earth today is a first time, just like sunrises and sun sets can be predicted years in advance what time it will rise or set on any given day of the year, the events on this earth happens the same way. That's why Genesis 1:14 reads Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.
Nuclear war will never happen! Zachariah 5:1-4 says the ICBMs {flying roll(s)} with nuclear warheads will remain in house were they made and destroy it timber and stones. That's the abomination which makes desolate making the entire USA Armageddon, [b]a safe haven for the saint who will be the only people able to live here.Tell me, what does Zachariah 5:1-4 have to do with nuclear war? The flying scroll was described as being about 30 feet long and 15 feet wide or about 9 meters long and 4.5 meters wide?
And Nuclear war has happened.Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll {ICBM}.
2 And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits.
3 Then said he unto me, This is the curse {Nuclear weapons} that goeth forth over the face of the whole earth: for every one that stealeth shall be cut off as on this side according to it; and every one that sweareth shall be cut off as on that side according to it.
4 I will bring it forth, saith the Lord of hosts, and it shall enter into the house of the thief, and into the house of him that sweareth falsely by my name: and it shall remain in the midst of his house, [color-blue][/b]and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof[/color]. The only thing to do what's in blue is nuclear.[/b]Wheres atm so i can finally agree with him lol.
Zachariah 5:1-4 is where I took that quote from, it was in the post just before your other post. and shall consume it with the timber thereof and the stones thereof. The only thing to do what's in blue is nuclear.
The flying scroll was described as being about 30 feet long and 15 feet wide or about 9 meters long and 4.5 meters wide?
The text says nothing about Nuclear weapons. You had to insert your own words. There is no description of a mushroom cloud and no description of the splitting of the atom. You just have a flying scroll.Actually the width represents circumference, about that of ICBMs.
Have you seen any of the original photos of what happened in Japan in 1945? If you did, didn't they show timber and stones gone? What, then, do you believe it would do that the entire USA?I think it said a 'flying roll', which to me would not be a croissant, but perhaps a bagel or scone.
American Bible Association has changed scroll in older KJV, and maybe all translations, to roll in newer translations, the ones online Bible sources use.
I vaguely recall from my childhood an episode of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood in which the Land of Make-Believe was attacked by a giant flying loaf of bread. (Wikipedia confirms that this indeed happened in the real world, and not my imagination, in season 5, episode 4.)
It would seem that this episode was the fulfillment of the Biblical prophecy. Whether this was the intent of the show's writers, who were obviously stoned at the time (it was 1972, after all) is open to debate.
of course the SAME bible verse you keep quoting have also been interpreted to describe the roman empire, huns,arab invasions, mongols, ottoman empire, napoleon, hitler and the soviet union -- yours is just the most recent of many failed claims to prophecy
ps have you bought your new mayan calendar yet?Very True, indeed, but when we read Revelation 17 there are things which prevents it from being those nations such as:
1) The "kings committing fornication with her" are trade relations,
2) The "inhabitants drunken with the wine of" it is The American Dream,
3) The colors "purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls" are symbols of royalty as the US believes itself to be the greatest nation ever existed,
4) The "Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth" suggests it's the most deplorable of nations to ever exist and her destruction will be the most abominable "nuclear" as seen in Japan,
5) The "drunken with the blood of the saints" means she have killed anyone who oppose the traditional religion of the nation such as during "the New England witch hunt" of old.
6) the "The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition" is explained above,
7) "The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition" are the "5 praised nations" before Rome, Rome the 6th and England the seventh which the USA is the 8th.
8) "The ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast" are the 10 Al Queada groups who the USA established and then turned them into enemies and
9) "The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues" are people from all nations and most ethnic groups.all you're doing is injecting your own beliefs and interpretations into the bible, which is supposed to be a "sign" of a false prophet. What are your qualifications to interpret the bible - especially since your beliefs go almost universally against almost all of the standard interpretations of the church - you know the people with degrees in theology (some of them anyway) and biblical literature?
Isaiah 55:8-9
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts,
Romans 8:7
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be,
Isaiah 28:9
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk {religion's teaching}, and drawn from the breasts{religion's teachers and preachers} and
Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets
are some examples of why I should be believed over "the standard interpretations of the church " being I am the Elijah of Malachi 4:5-6, Matthew 11:7-15 and 17:10-13.so now you're claiming that you're equal to god - or at the very least his prophet. Are you going to be journeying to Waco texas any time soon? Just so I know to get out of the way before your crazy sets in.
I've already passed through Waco, TX but didn't stay but the "wacko" was already taken down.
If you study the Bible you will find few prophets have any place to call home except at the invitation of others, such as Elijah being the guest of a widow. Most people calling themselves prophets, including in Waco, had a place to call home, that alone sets me apart from them. Look at my photo, am I not as as weird in this time as John the baptizer was during his day? Doesn't that also suggest anything to you?it suggests that nothing you say can be taken seriously. "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world," (Heb. 1:1-2) The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time bthe gospel of the kingdom of God 1has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. (luke 16:16)
The bible says that jesus (and/or the apostles) were the last to possess prophetic knowledge. Therefore you are by definition a false prophet (according to christian theology).
not to mention, you have no formal training, no degrees in theology, biblical literature, etc. you're just playing with your own ego. No one has any reason to believe you.
Every reborn person becomes a proverbial son of god. I have a testimony of my new conception, gestation, trivial, birth, childhood and 27 years an adolescent therefore I am qualified to be a son of god spokesman.
according to you. Not according to anyone else. You're claiming to be a prophet. So can i. I woke up this morning and told my wife that I would have steak for dinner. We went about our day, things happened. for dinner, I suggested going to Carabbas to order steak. When the waiter brought me steak, did I just fulfill prophecy? Of course not. You're making the bible say what you want it to say, and you're interpreting it to fit your own beliefs (contrary to the majority of christian scholars that actually have degrees in related fields) - and you have no credentials except your own belief (read delusion) and your own ego. I'm sorry, I don't care what you have to say. Your words mean nothing to me.
Are you spiritually born with testimony of the various actions paralleling the natural birth? Are you willing to give a glimpse of some of the things in each stage resembling the birthing process? I have and am willing, go to http://prop1.org/protest/elijah/author.htm#book and read mine if you want.
I don't give a crap. I believe that you are a prophet just as much as I believe that I ride a unicorn to work every morning.
Then, JMcfarland, i can only say your beliefs doesn't change the facts?
you use the term "facts" very loosely. Saying you're a prophet hardly makes you one. Where is god in the form of a dove coming down from heaven and declaring in a loud voice "this dude speaks for me, and I totally agree with him?"
Still, what you perceive doesn't change the facts any more than what you believe.
if you are what you claim to be, why don't you prove it - instead of asking people to just take it on "faith"
Take the website address above and change everything after /elijah into /nature.htm and read anything you want to, then wait around and see if it fulfills itself, that's the only way I know to prove it.
can't you turn some water into wine or heal an amputee or something? All of the bible's prophets could do cool stuff like that.
Take what I gave you or leave it, if you can't accept what the bible say to look for as proof then you don't need it.
thats the thing. you haven't actually given me anything - just your own interpretations of a several- thousand year old book and baseless assertions.
Go to my website and begin reading, there you will find things, Period, the end of this discussion.
A Troubled Man,
By your name I would suspect it would be is all I can say.Cascoly,
I have no intention of proving the Bible's accuracy, I'm only giving the interpretations I've been provided for the readers to do with what they choose. I do say it is true because it's mostly metaphors, allegories, parables and symbol/types and once one have obtained the wisdom enough to bring them into today's language its truth will be revealed."mostly metaphors, allegories, parables and symbol/types" - here we agree -- these are basic LITERARY tools, and as such have nothing to do with the SCIENTIFIC discussion underway here. if intrepretting these stories provides you a basis for faith, no one's disputing you - the argument is with those who claim the bible is revealing scientific facts or historical events recorded nowhere else -- eg, the global flood which fails tests both historic and scientific
Most science have found are explained in them, once one understand what they represent.
funny, you said we were done talking, but you're still going - whether or not I respond at all.
This only proves that you can make anything a Bible prophecy. I could find a way to relate passages in Revelation to episodes of Gilligan's Island with enough shoehorning. Does this make Bob Denver the Antichrist?
That depends on what definition you have for anti, to precede or to oppose. If you mean to precede then yes, Bob Denver did precede the manifestation of the second son of man, if you mean to oppose then everyone who preach Jesus didn't mean what he said such as you can't serve god and money because we should allow money to serve us instead; we should live like the birds sometimes man throw them a seeds other times they find their own needs and you should dress like the lily of the field who are closed with what grows on them and not make coverings for themselves, are 3 examples of their oppose christ's teachings.
the second son of man
Hmmm. Skipper was a father-like figure to Gilligan. I think we're on to something here.
you can't serve god and money
The Howells, as rich as they were, were penniless when stranded on a desert island.
we should live like the birds
If the castaways could fly, they could have gotten off the island.
you should dress like the lily of the field
They likely had to make clothes out of flowers and whatever else they could find.
Wow! It works! My Ministry of the Uncharted Desert Island is now open for sermons and tithing!oh wow, and you proved it with assertions and reinterpretations! I'm in!
Actually, it's about 4.5 billion years ago.
From the look on your face, you were an eye witness.
Can you say conclusively it wasn't 4.4 billion years ago? thats a pretty big calculation..
The galaxy MACS0647-JD is about 13.3 billion light-years away. The universe itself is only 13.7 billion years old, so this galaxy's light has been traveling toward us for almost the whole history of space and time.
another point for believing eternity is possible. An old universe is entirely credible even so, it is not too old for God.
Did you have a conversation with God about this or are you just pumping up your big brother for a fight?
I'll repeat myself just so everyone has a chance at reading it.
When it comes to the universe.. yes it can be old, very old.
When it comes to the earth being millions of years old.
When you buy a car don't be surprised if the transmission was built years prior or the steering wheel or the tires. When you find a car in the junk yard not all the parts are from the same year as the car.
When it comes to the matter used in the earth don't be surprised if some of this old universe material was used which would give an appearance of age.What evidence do you have that earth is young but made of old parts? Because all evidence points to an old solar system.
Well, to be fair, the Earth is young but made of old parts. Our 4.57 billion year old planet is made of 13.7 billion year old components.
But no, it's not possible for uranium that has decayed to lead to "look old." It has a well-known half-life that is impervious to changes in pressure or temperature, and thus is a very accurate measure of the age of a rock. Especially when this dating method is combined with argon-argon, rubidium-strontium, and other dating methods that all give the same date.That's what i love about this place. The inability to search out mentally what is posted and the never ending quest for evidence.
I did answer it the first time, up above. I thought i needed to point out that you did not reflect upon that answer very long, if at all.
Luck really has nothing to do with scientific understanding as the world passes by those clinging to ancient myths and superstitions while denying and rejecting facts. Believe whatever nonsense you want. Good luck with that.Really Mark? With the Evolution Theory, sorry it is not a fact and not scientific either... it cannot topple the Scientific Method... Besides it is fake and doesn't have any proofs to validate the claims of the evolutionists including that of Darwin's...
Hehe...classic creationist nonsense - citing the scientific method when you obviously dont even know what that is
please elaborate how scientific method shows evolution to be false [but you're not allowed to use the 'its only a theory' ploy or 'it's history so can't be observed 'canard]You could save a lot of time and do the research yourself by typing, "darwinism debunked' into google
I did.
The very first one began with a quotation from that 2000 year old book with the wild fantasy that the female sex came from a rib of the male one.
The first paragraph stated that the "missing link" has never been found. You know the one - the same ones that have been found thousands of times in thousands of species that link species together.
That was followed by the statement that because there have been phony links that people believe it.
No, thanks, brotheryochanan - I don't need to read that kind of crap.i've read that nonsense - i was asking if you had any REAL science to support your ridiculous claims; if that's the only evidence you offer, your claims are rejected as bogus
Don't knock it.. someone made the bed you're sleeping in, could it have been a scientist, or a designer, or even a carpenter? most likely though, it just happened. I see your point. it wasn't there until you needed it. concept was already there, design was there, materials were there, factory was there even.. but it needed someone to make it happen didn't it? and someone to move it into your house, right? but too simple to believe all of that. the evidence though.. , is it the bed itself, or the drawings, or the sales receipt? or ?
Its good to know though, that you have a bed to sleep in. But I don't really know if you do or not do I? but I promise you, if you have cotton sheets on that bed, friend, cotton don't grow on its own. Call it natural sciences, or whatever you like, it is produced from a life source. if it doesn't rain, then you better have a pretty big waterpot. We call that life source, Nature. At what moment did nature have its big explosion? Who synch'd all the separate sciences into what we have now? why are you still looking for the answer to all of this?
an interesting anecdote, was the professor was out of time.. his project was due.. he looked at the clock futilely, realizing he could move the hands on the clock, but he could not altar time itself. He finally wrote a note, saying to his staff of fellow scientists, I am not God, and I could not make the experiment work any faster, but if I were God, I would have changed the amount of time needed to do this. He knows I don't like being late! He turned it in with his report, and a few days later he got a response on his submission; "thank you for your honesty, professor, but the building clock system was being repaired and you had three extra hours. If you had looked closer, you would have seen that the second hand was not moving, had you been still a moment, you also would have heard the silence of the clock not ticking. but that is not all; the clock technician made three different adjustments within a period of three hours. How do you expect something man made to be so accurate as to base your scientific conclusions on? and btw, as a scientist, why do you always blame man's errors on God? Professor, you are forgiven and due to human error are allowed to redo your experiment. We are fully aware that only God is perfect, and we do expect mistakes from time to time. Carry on."
I DO beleive in the NATURAL SCIENCES . (the one none of us has messed with)Here is your description of evolution as you posted before and it reads:
"Evolution:
1. A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form. See Synonyms at development."
Okay prove this by showing proofs or evidences... But you will never find any ROTFL... Warning do not show piltdown man, archeopteryx and other hoaxes made by evolutionists before nyahahahaha...
Translational stages takes immense time and perhaps billions of years to materialize and there is no way you can observe and test evolution theory with the Scientific Method. Hence, by saying evolution is tested and proven is completely a lie...
But first and foremost, the translational stages or (your synonym) development never materialized for there are no fossils or evidences that will vouch this.
Evolutionists showed some fossils before but they are all fake and just combinations of bones from different prehistoric animals... hehehe...
As is you know scientific method well lelz.
Read this carefully:
Scientific method gives an objective, standardized approach to conducting experiments and to come up with plausible and acceptable results. By employing a standardized approach in their investigations, scientists can feel confident that they will stick to the facts and minimize the influence of personal, preconceived notions. - Howstuffworks.comThere have been multiple studies on fruit flies (since they reproduce at such a rapid rate and have a short life-span) where evolution has been observed. They have achieved speciation in a rather short amount of time - speciation, where the offspring is a different species than the parents/grandparents and are no longer able to interbreed. Any small amount of research would have enabled you to find that one.
No Fruit Fly Evolution Even after 600 Generations this is according to Brian Thomas, M.S., and he added,"If evolutionary biologists could document such evolution in action, they could vindicate their worldview and cite real research to support their surreal claims. In 1980, this search for proof led researchers to painstakingly and purposefully mutate each core gene involved in fruit fly development. The now classic work, for which the authors won the Nobel Prize in 1995, was published in Nature. The experiments proved that the mutation of any of these core developmental genes―mutations that would be essential for the fruit fly to evolve into any other creature―merely resulted in dead or deformed fruit flies. This therefore showed that fruit flies could not evolve...
So there is no evolution that took place on these insects...
This is again irrefutable hehehe...evolution is not about fruit flies evolving into elephants. Evolution is about speciation - and that was successful on more than one occasion. Try looking it up.
Nyahahahahahaha you are moving again the goalpost, now here's the coup d' grace to your stinking fruit flies:
The meaning of speciation according to wikipedia is: Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new biological species arise.
Wikipedia is a site that is lopsided on the part of the evolutionists lelz...the definition of a species at the most fundamental level is one group that cannot interbreed and produce viable offspring with another. Someone needs to do some homework.
1) A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal...
2)A group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common attributes and called by a common name.How is this a "coup d'grace," exactly?
Fruit fly speciation has been observed. When a population of Drosophila melanogaster no longer interbreeds with another population of Drosophila melanogaster, that's biological speciation.
Now, I know what you're going to say. "They're both still D melanogaster!!!! Lulz!!!!1!!"
True. You do have a point. Admittedly, the definition of "species" is a bit fluid. "Species" means something different for fruit flies, E coli, and bananas. This is not an "evolutionist hoax," but a reflection of the fact that nature doesn't fit neatly into the the rigid structure of Linnaean taxonomy.
No, Wikipedia is neutral. Reality is lopsided on the side of the evolutionists.Fruit fly speciation will not vindicate evolution theory. It just justify the end of the branching out.
The change or development took place in animals of the same kind.
The end result is still of course... a stinking fruit fly, with slight change in colors and other attributes.
Can you show a scientific research that your fruit fly can evolve from its nearest ancestor... Well this is more convincing and interesting and for sure this is worthy of a Nobel Prize...
There is no translation stage and this makes your fly speciation meaningless and useless!
(Just curious: Hubpages doesn't even recognize the word speciation it has red caterpillar underneath it hehe).
Interesting examples. Piltdown man was indeed a hoax - a mix of human and chimpanzee bones designed to fool the scientific community. The hoax was exposed by evolutionists -- not creationists -- when they were allowed to examine the evidence and find telltale signs of deliberate tampering. It is not evidence against evolution, but an affirmation that science via peer review works.
Archaeopteryx, on the other hand, is not a hoax. It was a real creature that lived during the late Jurassic, and remains one of the best pieces of evidence for the linkage between dinosaurs and birds. There were some papers published in the 1980s claiming that archaeopteryx was a hoax, but these papers were written by physicists and astronomers unfamiliar with the fossilization process and are only taken seriously by creationists desperate for an argument against the scientific evidence for evolution.
If you assume that the scientific method means the only way of testing a hypothesis is direct observation of controlled experiments in a lab, yes. However, this is an incorrect caricature of science. Much of modern science is not conducted in a lab. Scientific research is conducted through statistical analysis of data collected from telescopes, public health officials, mass spectrometers, ice cores, and genome sequencers.
We don't need to physically go back in time and watch dinosaurs become birds. We can do that by sequencing reptile and bird DNA and seeing which genes they share, or observing them in development and seeing how their analagous structures differentiate.
Fossils are really just a bonus - evolution is proven beyond reasonable doubt by evidence from extant plants and animals. In some cases, such as Tiktaalik, they confirm prevailing models of evolution. In other cases, like the Eocene bat Onychonycteris finneyi, a fossil find causes the model to be revised. However, no fossil has ever disproved evolution, no matter what the creationist industry tells you.
Evolution is true.@Scot - Scientific Research employs scientific method as well... read this definition from businessdictionary.com - Application of scientific method to the investigation of relationships among natural phenomenon, or to solve a medical or technical problem.
Hmmm... I'll get back to this once I have time... my work is currently spreading my energy and time thin...Tricking people that the archeopteryx as a translational fossil is hoax to me Scot...
Here's my stance on the archeopteryx and this is according to Safarti: CreationWiki response:
It needs to be noted that none of cited sources are creationist sources, so while some creationists have used this claim, it is not a creationist claim.
That said, CreationWiki does not consider Archaeopteryx to be a fake. In fact it is far more useful to creationists as a real fossil, since based on uniformitarian dating methods, the bird is older than all of the so-called feathered dinosaurs. It stands perched as an excellent example of the fact that evolutionists often ignore their own dating methods to produce transitional series.
While Archaeopteryx had some traits in common with dinosaurs, it was clearly a bird.
However, in the article, Bird evolution flies out the window, the creationist anatomist Dr David Menton shows that Archaeopteryx is a true bird with flight feathers, not a transitional form—and certainly not a feathered dinosaur. And Dr Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an evolutionist himself (see Feduccia v Creationists), says:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.”
Archaeopteryx (unlike Archaeoraptor) is NOT a hoax—it is a true bird, not a “missing link”
by Jonathan Sarfati, CMI–Australia
24 March 2000Got it. So archaeopteryx is a "hoax" because it doesn't fit your misguided understanding of how evolution is supposed to work. This seems to be a running thread throughout your recent responses.
I know that this is going to whoosh by you and utterly fail to sink in, but I'm going to try and enlighten you anyway. Here is the important point about evolution that you currently do not understand:
Evolution is not a linear progression. It is a branching tree.
The idea that each fossil should fall neatly into a long chain linking ancestor A to modern species Z is incorrect. Evolution does not work that way. There is no "missing link" because evolution is not a chain. It is a tree.
To take the analogy a step further, evolutionary biologists are attempting to piece together a tree that has been put through a wood chipper and thrown into a compost heap. Each fossil is one chip - and one that has managed to survive intact. Most of the chips have already decomposed. You don't know how big a tree it was or what it looked like, and have to make inferences based on the chips you find.
Each chip provides some important information - the direction of the wood grain, thickness of the rings, etc. But it can't exactly tell you where on the tree it was. Maybe it was a knot in the trunk. Maybe it was a small outer branch. Maybe it was a thick middle branch. It is only by piecing the chips together that we can begin to figure out what the tree looked like.
It isn't an exact process, and the placement of the chips can change as new information is uncovered. Perhaps a chip you thought was from a thick branch came from an outlying twig, or what you thought was a bit of bark from the trunk was actually diseased wood from a knot. New chips that are found can force you to rearrange the branches based on new information they provide - a bit of moss might tell you that an entire branch was south-facing, for example.
Creationists, to take this analogy to its extreme, deny that the tree exists. Comically, you deniers cannot agree on how the tree didn't exist, but you do agree that there was no tree. Some claim that the chips have always been chips and were created as chips. Others recognize that the chips were once plants, but claim that the chips all came from small shrubs instead of one big tree. Others deny the entire thing and say all the chips are hoaxes.
Some, like Jonathan Safarti (Safartree?) exploit the uncertainty about the placement of the chips to argue that the tree didn't exist. He is saying that because chips from branch A and branch D show signs of insect infestation, they couldn't have been part of the same branch and therefore there was never a tree and it's all a hoax.
Exactly the kind of intellectual dishonesty I'd expect from a Creationist.
You can claim "hoaxes" all you want. The fact remains that evolution is true.Good analogy. I like that and will have to remember it.
Hehehe archeopteryx is printed on thousands and thousands of biology books as a translational fossil, well time and time again it isn't. So the fabled archeopteryx that once paraded and proclaimed as a translational fossil is not a hoax?
I admire your wit, but your analogy is null and void on the first place for it is anchored with something that is not yet founded and not yet tested and proven.
You are refraining from fossils because the evolutionists cannot show anything... Now you are moving into your comfort zone and this is called moving the goalpost, but sorry to disappoint an analogy will not change the outcome of the ballgame.
An analogy will certainly not help an individual win a case in court without evidences or carve out Master or doctorate degrees without thesis which is reinforced with scientific research. The same is true with the different scientific claims... Since the their are no proofs, evidences and scientific research to reinforce evolution, therefore your analogy is just a pure assumption.
The evolutionists must show evidences, accurate and honest scientific findings and proofs, first before going further...
So use a tree in your analogy, now what are the roles played by the seeds, fruits, roots, and flowers on it. Your analogy is incomplete. And here's the dagger how about the tree itself where did it came from?
BTW I am still awaiting your response about Tiktilaak and the thing about the scientific research...you continue to demonstrate your scientific ignorance - science is not decided by popular vote or in a court
please cite ANY creationists who have achieved their advanced scientific degree thru their 'research' in creationism or so-called intelligent designFirst of all, the term is transitional fossil. If you want to look less ignorant, you can start by using the correct words for the science you're denying.
Secondly, archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. It is not considered to be an ancestor of modern birds, but does not need to be in order to be considered a transitional fossil. The fact that it shows characteristics of both dinosaurs and birds is sufficient. It is not a hoax.
I have provided examples of fossils, which you have denied. As I have already explained, fossils are only a small part of the evidence for evolution. Genetic research, vestigial structures, developmental biology, and observed speciation prove the validity of evolution beyond all reasonable doubt.
We have. You refuse to read them.
None of these are relevant, and you know it. The point of the analogy, which you obviously and predictably missed, is that evolution is not a chain but a branching tree.
No you aren't. I already responded with the tree analogy. Tiktaalik is still an important transitional fossil. It doesn't have to be the first fish to sprout legs in order to be transitional. Nor does it have to be a direct ancestor of all land animals. All that matters is that it meets the prediction of evolution by showing characteristics of both marine and land animals.
Besides - how does evidence of an earlier walking fish disprove evolution? It only changes the timeline of how life evolved. Evolution is still true.
First and foremost, you say that my question about where the tree came from is irrelevant just shows that evolution cannot fully explain the origin of life or it shows ignorance on your part... For you know that a pile of wood, a speck of stone or any non-living things will not evolve into a single-celled creature...
If you cannot establish where the tree came from, your analogy is null and void on the first place. I am aware of your "branching out" prose but I am locking my target on where your tree came from...
Here is a point to ponder from a creationist site: Evolutionists just throw up their hands at the question of the origin of matter because they know something cannot evolve from nothing. They stick their heads in the sand and ignore the problem. The fact that matter exists in outrageously large quantities simply proves evolution is wrong. The "Big Bang" theory doesn't solve the problem either. Matter and energy have to come from somewhere. ---abovetopsecret.com
BIG LOL ON THAT!
It is not yet certain if evolution is true for it still lack evidences that are without reasonable doubts in fact it is considered just a mere hypothesis... So anchoring an analogy on something that is not yet founded is nonsense...
Theory is a theory lol... please keep it that way... and evolution theory is not a "law," so it is not right to say it is true just as yet...you get that gravity is a theory too, right. The fact that it's a law as well does not mean it's BETTER than a theory - it addresses a different factor. in science, you do not get any higher than a theory. It is the graduation point. Creation is NOT a theory - it's a hypothesis. No matter how many times you are told that, you gloss right over it.
The reason evolution doesn't answer the origins of life is because it doesn't address the origins of life - it has nothing to do with them. Evolution is NOT the theory of how life began - it's how life evolved. Therefore your question about the tree is irreverent. You get that not all scientists are microbiologists, right? that there's many different branches of science, and they all study different things? Asking a microbiologist studying evolution where the tree came from is like asking a christian where the supposed prophet mohammed was when he celebrated his tenth birthday. It's asking the question to the wrong person.
In science, a Law describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do.
a theory, however, starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.
You have time to go look up "creationist" sites like no one's business, but you can't look up any of the actual evidence? Intellectual dishonesty. I've read the creationist sites, and I've read multiple times how they've been repeatedly debunked. I've examined both sides. You clearly haven't.A theory explains the occurrence of a phenomenon while a law describes a phenomenon. So you are wrong if you say that a theory gives an accurate and predictive "description" of the natural world. You just used the word "predictive," here, and this word implies probability and uncertainty.
To say a theory is superior than a law is of course false... Although both give predictions a law give a more accurate result. A law gives a true description of phenomena almost all of the time, while the explanations given by theories are always "uncertain." Hence, it is not "right," to say evolution as correct just as yet.
A law is not just about formulas, since there are laws that give descriptions even without formulas.
Theory although thoroughly tested, is FALSIFIABLE, this just implies that its explanations can be refuted and can be replaced by a superior theory. This just means that the explanations provided by a theory is not certain... So saying evolution is true is of course a falsehood.
By the way there are two kinds of theories and these are the strong theories and weak theories. And unfortunately evolution falls under the weak theories for it lacks substantial evidences and proofs.
Origin of life and evolution are interconnected and interlinked. It is just so funny that evolutionists and darwinists cannot provide an answer to the question where does their single-celled creature (fabled ancestors of the dinosaurs) came from. BIG LOL on this...
Debunked... In your dreams... The evolutionist sites cannot even explain how symbiosis flourished?Evolution is a theory while god is a hypothesis. Feel free to make the theory.
Evolutionists do not study Abiogenesis. However Abiogenesis is being investigated. Tell me what does the bible say about single-celled (creatures) and dinosaurs?
Evolution explains symbiosis perfectly. For instance, the clownfish evolves accidentally to have immunity to the anemone's stinging cells. the anemone provides such good protection for the clownfish that the clownfish is able to reproduce and pass on his altered anemone immune gene to his offspring. Is this described in the bible? If so please give reference.There sure are a lot of "accidents" on this planet. Thank God for the endless variety of His creativity.
You can thank God is you like, but what does your God say about evolution, abiogenesis or symbiosis?
Not much. He says there are more important things to concern myself with.
They why do you ask these questions for science to answer? Because you don't think science has the answers, but it does and your bible doesn't.
What? I don't expect science to answer these questions. I just know there was a great flood. There are accounts from Native American, Hindu, and other sources. They all have a common thread. Mankind got so out of hand, that it upset the balance of nature.
I did not come here to dwell on the origin of the species, but to acknowledge that I believe the story of "Noah's Flood."
The only thing that I will say in response is concerning the mention of dinosaurs and one cell animals. Perhaps the "leviathan" was a dinosaur . . . perhaps a crocodile or a rhinoceros. I do not know. I do know that the Bible does not mention chimpanzees, raccoons or house cats, either. That kind of information is found in encyclopedias along with evidence of the flood.Please show evidence for a world wide flood that would cover the highest mountains all over the world from a scientific source? It should be easy to find as it was supposedly with the last few thousand years.
There is just one wee problem with the idea that folklore all over the world mentions a flood and tying that to proof of Noahs flood that, according to the bible, destroyed all life outside of what was on the ark.
All those floods (often giving the impression that it was world wide) happened at vastly differing times. The time line absolutely prevents them from being used as an indication that the biblical version of a world wide flood is true.
Consider, while ignoring what science tells us of the time line of large floods, a native American tale of Noah's flood. If their flood happened before or at the same time as Noah's, then there was no one left to continue the tale. The story would be lost, forever. If instead the tale was of a flood after Noah's then it certainly referenced a different flood and cannot be used as an indication that Noah's flood actually happened.1. Pure conjecture accepted by the broadcaster as fact.
2. All of those who tell the story are descendants of Noah who migrated everywhere. The Hebrew people have proven to be the best record keepers.
3. Why argue? Science is a method of study, not an absolute authority on all matters. By that method, proof or denial of Noah's Flood is a moot point at this point.1. ?? Sorry, not understanding.
2. If all the stories are from the descendents of Noah, then they cannot be of floods anywhere out of the area of Mt. Arrarat. North American floods, for instance, cannot be referenced as evidence of Noah's flood as any witnesses died in Noah's flood. That was my point, too.
3. The scientific method is the method used by science to discover truth. Science, using the scientific method of study, can find no evidence of a world wide flood. Whether that is a moot point or not depends, of course, on whether one is looking for truth or for verification of a tale from thousands of years ago. If truth, it is obviously important, if verification then it is moot as it can only provide evidence that it never happened.2. So we all are of Jewish ancestry? That's not what science tells us. Science has genetic evidence they we are all of African descent. I guess the lies you have been told will have you telling us that all African's are of Jewish descent? You'd have to give it to evolution to have changed the appearance of African's so very quickly?
proven by whom??? the bible is full of inaccuracies - scientific, geographic and historical
it's inconsistent even within itself - eg, the 2 creation stories intermingled within genesis. the bible is formed from at least 3 distinct sources "Yahwist, or Jahwist, J (J being the German equivalent of the English letter Y); the Elohist, E; the Deuteronomist, D, (the name comes from the Book of Deuteronomy, D's contribution to the Torah) ..
Modern scholars agree that separate sources and multiple authors underlie the Pentateuch, but there is much disagreement on how these sources were used to write the first five books of the bible""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahwist
has more details on this fascinating subject, but none of it supports a reliance on the bible for science
they dont have common explanations or stories, though, and you're forgetting about all the civilizations that DONT have flood myths but were active at the time of the alleged global flood
there were THOUSANDS of different dinosaurs on land & sea over tens of MILLIONS of years. the bible mentions a specific leviathan and behemoth - yet another feeble attempt to make a vague biblical reference fit an unsound theory while ignoring the FACT that those dinosaurs lived over hundreds of millions of years ago and there is NO evidence that any dinosaurs [other than birds] ever lived at the same time as humans
the fact that the bible dosnt mention chimps , or polar bears is just more evidence for the provincial ignorance of the original tellers of these fireside stories
Whoa a smokescreen... a troll... nyahahaha evolutionists' classical tactics...
Say what you want you do not have a hub... I have no time for you ROTFL...@Rad Man - accidentally really eh... always like this... nyahahaha its pointless and this doesn't make any sense at all!
Always through chance I am so sick of this already nyahahahahaha...Sorry you don't understand. My oldest son is about 7" taller than me. Could this help him out in looking for a wife to have children with? There are those born who feel little or no pain. It only takes one genetic deviation to make the clownfish successful.
Again, what does your bible say about the single celled ameba or the dinosaur? Don't avoid the question.Shall I answer for him?
What I am taught is not this. What you say do not go with what I like and accepted. So my answer is nyahahahahaha.... pointless nyahahahahaha...It's amazing.
I'm currently reading Xenocide by Orson Scott Card. The third in the Ender series that my kids got me hooked on. Ender describes someone as "few who are captured by such a powerful story are ever able to win free of it"
and
"Most people are able to hold most stories they are told in abeyance, to keep a little distance between the story and their inmost hearts. But... for you... the terrible lie has become a self-story, the tale you must believe if you are able to remain yourself"
Reminds me of the mother/father who kills their children so they could go straight to heaven before they sin.
Sockpuppet!... use your main account in forums and do not hide... So vocal yet very coward... Nyahahaha your replies are not even substantial...
creationwiki is not a creationist source? the distortions and intellectual dishonesty here just gets deeper.
who CARES what creationwiki thinks! here's a description of that site from rationalwiki, a group of REAAL scientists:
"CreationWiki is a free, online, wiki-based encyclopaedia written from what it calls a "uniquely creationist perspective".[1] Although it contains a mixture of half truths, outright lies and deliberate distortions, its authors, sadly, hope it will be taken seriously"
It is unclear how the site's editors reconcile their belief in the ultimate authority of the Bible[3] with their deliberate promotion of falsehoods and disinformation. Perhaps they have an updated edition of the Bible in which the Ninth Commandment now reads "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, except to promote thy religious beliefs and political agenda."
----------------
among other things, creationwiki violates the basic concept of wiki by not allowing edits by anyone who disagrees with them
On Tiktaalik >>>
Dr. Miles in charge of the American Museum of Natural History famously wrote:
''But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed''
Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photo of a transitional fossil in his books. In reply, he said:
''I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument''
Knowing this, for the last 100 or so years evolutionists have had to resort to creating frauds and hoaxes since they know no fossil evidence support their claims."
Tetrapod footprints found in Poland and reported in Nature in January 2010 were “securely dated” at least 22 million years older than Tiktaalik, which means that Tiktaalik cannot be part of the fish-to-legged-animal transition, which is now considered to have occurred at around 397 million years ago. The Tiktaalik is estimated to be 375 million years old.
There is no way that the descendants are older than its ancestors... hehehe... Or I am older than my grandfather...
FYI... The groundbreaking discovery in Poland already crushed the validity of the Tiktaalik...
(According to wikipedia which is biased in favor of the evolutionists: tetrapods, comprises the first four-limbed vertebrates)
first, you cant even quote properly -- that was NOT my writing!
but beyond that all you did was fulfill my prophecy that you would resort to the same old creationist distortions, and then have the intellectual dishonesty to claim you were using the scientific methodIt's the evolutionists that made distortions for so many years with their never-ending hoaxes...
Here are some examples:
Human Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
What a pity... the neanderthals and java man are present in many biology books and even history books... tsk tsk tsk... Millions and millions of people are fed with wrong information no thanks to the forgeries, frauds and hoaxes whipped up by the evolutionists...oh, but don't forget all of the creationist books, websites and museums that claim that since god created the world in 7 days, that humans walked side by side with dinosaurs. Surely they're reliable because omigawd they're CREATIONISTS and RELIABLE.
So this just means that you accept the fallacies, forgeries, frauds and hoaxes made by the evolutionists... ROTFL...
But do not divert... we're still at science and showcasing the flaws of evolution... Let us hang on here...
BTW the days in the bible is not literal days nyahahahahaha... and not necessarily equals to 24 hours... In the original Hebrew scriptures a day in the Genesis is actually equals to an epoch...that's not what your fellow believers have been telling us --- by your calculations, how old is the earth, the moon and the sun? when did life and later humans first appear??
Not all religions are created equal cascoly... hehe...
BTW this subthread started with JMcFarland claiming that evolution is tested and proven, I don't have ample time to veer away from this my friend... And so far he is not successful on defending his claim...First of all, I didn't start this thread, so I don't know what you're talking about. this is a thread about the flood story found in genesis.
Secondly, I've provided multiple links that you've laughed at and refused to read. You can remain willfully ignorant all you want, but you can hardly say I've failed - when you've failed to at least LOOK at the scientific side.
It's subthread rather...
I will not take seriously the links, you could've digested and summarized it, so that it will be open for rebuttals... Otherwise I will consider it as a passive response...
(:okay, so any/all of the links you provided I shouldn't bother going to either, right? You could have doctored it or altered it or anything else.
I surf around the internet to search for information and at the end my point of views prevail to get away from complications and lengthy discussions. They are open for refutations anyway...
The links are for reference I really don't care if you read them or not... What I care for are the texts that are posted on this thread...yes, because the forums are full of actually degreed scientists and microbiologists who have SO much free time on their hands that they debate irrationally-minded creationists for fun. If you use the internet as your sole source of knowledge, you know even less than I initially believed. If every source that disagrees with your position is obviously doctored, yet you believe every creationist source regardless of their (lack of) qualifications, you're simply reiterating your own bias. It leads me to believe that you don't care if what you believe is true - you simply want to believe it and truth becomes irreverent. I respect those who search for the truth, regardless of what path that leads them down. In order to do that, you need to be open minded. You, clearly, are not.
ROTFL... I see it the different way... Period...
yeah, and many people claim to see aliens and bigfoot. Doesn't make them right, does it?
And many people claim that there are neanderthals, piltdown man, java man, and among other numerous bogus creatures... but of course these are just handiwork of evolutionists who were already given meritorious awards for their frauds and forgeries....
yeah, okay - except you adamantly refuse to actually look at any of the evidence.
I don't have ample time to read your links sorry for that JM, it is just that my work and my duties at home is spreading my energy and time thin... and I have a writing gig for a client too...
I was able to hang here because of the christmas break...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
I don't think anyone of us has "all" the answers.. this hub has been very interesting. at this point I am relinquishing any oversite of it. I maintain that IN the Beginning GOD.
I DO state that the events that have already happened cannot be changed. we can only deal with and try to substantiate what happened. Yes, the study of science is still trying "prove" that is was this way or that.
Christianity is accused of blind faith in the Word of God. (Biblios)
Evolutionists stand accused of trying to prove that we randonly exist. (without God.)
I think; after this forum;
True scientists should only investigate the different compartments of natural science;
Bible scholars and believers of God should take care of the Spiritual/Divine studies.
Can they go hand in hand?
I think they both have the right to practice. One does not in my mind or in my studies negate the other.
There is a realm of natural science and there is a realm of Spiritual Science.
Just as there are vast scientific journals, there is also vast theological journals;
Whichever you study; bear in mind this thought; If we have no eternal spirit, then we have no eternal destination. but I find in my own mind that randomly created humanity is subject to exploration and
examination of creationists, in the continuum of eternity; which is a constant claim of their position.
I'm not a proponent of violence, or unneccessary angst over this subject. I am a proponent of choice. At least of making your own mind up.
Stay cool , stay collected and the egg will hatch as soon as incubation is over..
Maybe even the Old ships of yesterday will float again.. as it says it was sealed with pitch.. btw, can anyone give me the life-preservability of tar? on Gopher wood? ( gopher could have been some sort of laminated wood, ahead of its time.) -would like an intelligent response. give me the scientific probabilities.
_______________________________________________________Hooo yaaa!I think you're right that theologians should only investigate theological questions. Science should only investigate things that happen in the real world, but when the claim (for instance) that a particular piece of wood is from Noah's ark that is in the world and can be looked at.
I have no idea how long tar will last, but I do recall reading somewhere that no one has any idea of what gopher wood is. That there is not now nor is there any past record of such a tree. The single mention anywhere is in the tale of Noah's ark.The first 3 verses of John's gospel suggests if we cease to segregate and judge we will be able to comprehend and verbally explain everything concerning existence, the 14th verse suggest Jesus had those abilities, therefore, to be an in the beginning god person you should be seeking evidence and substance in support of it.
Joy to you,
Elijah NatureBoy (Google it)
The first chapter of john describes that God, in the beginning.. John the baptist and then jesus... John is showing connection between God, john the baptist and jesus because this is what the jews and converted jews needed to be sure of. Nothing more and nothing less.
- Deepes Mindposted 12 years ago0
A movie quote comes to mind.. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove.
I have a question for the evolutionists: Just because science can show evidence that dates back to a certain point, does this mean that there is no way possible that anything occurred prior to recorded history or could it be possible that scientists answered as many questions as they could and then said forget it and stuck to the basic explanation that they could come up with to explain something that is more complex than what can be studied?
Question for the creationists: Since there is no physical evidence to suggest the occurrences listed in the bible, do you know for sure that this stuff actually happened? Or could the stories in the bible's old testament just be stories that provide a simplistic explanation for something that is beyond what we can comprehend?
Basically We're looking at two sides of the same coin. The difference between science and religion is most elements of science stops at what can only be proven whereas religion explores the possibility of things beyond what can be proven. Who is right? It all comes down to what you choose to believe. fact of the matter is that both sides have their elements that is right and wrong. I believe that there are things that have happened that predate what can be scientifically proven at this time (if everything has been proven fully and not further tested, then scientists and researchers would be out of work). On the other hand, The Bible is incorrectly taught and contains the stories I mentioned earlier. Also, some versions are actually translations and interpretations of translations (which in itself leaves room for the writer to inject his own flawed principles and opinions therein)absolutely wrong - it's not a beauty contest. facts are facts - you can choose not to believe them, but that doesnt change the facts. and the claim by creationists is that their myths are as valid as reality. it just aint so
You are absolutely correct. Facts are facts. This is not a beauty contest at all. And the "claim" by creationists that certain elements of the myth is as valid as scientific logic is absolutely invalid (note, I said certain elements of stories, not the whole story.
now for instance, The Bible states that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. It doesn't specifically break down how it was done, when it was done, nor how certain things grew or changed to be what they are. The problem that most creationists and Christians face is that a LOT of the Bible is taken too literally and at face value when the reality of the situation is that the stories were just that STORIES and not meant to be taken literally. Like Aesop's fables. They were stories that ultimately had a message and simply gave an illustration of certain ideals. Because these stories are outlandish and fantastic (Yes I, a Christian said it) It is easier to dismiss than Scientific research and studies (which can still be dismissed, though it is more difficult to).
On the other hand, Let's analyze logic (Which most evolutionists and scientists cling to as strongly as most creationists and Christians cling to the Bible). Logic, while more practical, concise, and strongly described and backed up by so-called evidence, is defined as the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. a particular method of reasoning and augmentation. Now look up reasoning and you will see it defined as the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts(or data) or premises.
Now here we go.. Basically, the scientific research and "logic" is actually theory. Basically, somebody found a lot of fossils, debris, bones.. etc (I will refer to this as data) while searching for clues. after collecting this data, they took it back to a lab with all sorts of equipment and, cleaned it up, and started to piece the puzzle together. Depending on what seemed to fit together best, They then stated "Hey guys, based on my research, this is what I think happened back then". A lot of people latched onto it because it sounded better than the stuff in the bible (which was taken too literally instead of as just a basic story to explain happened) and now have come to the conclusion that God does not exist (note, I have no more proof of how atheists think than anyone else other than an atheist and am just giving my idea.).
So in conclusion, as I stated before it is two sides of the same coin. A lot of evolutionists and atheists basically have fallen into the same trap that a lot of creationists and christians have: They drew their own conclusions and formulated their own beliefs based on information provided during the time data was gathered. Which basically means that one side's views can actually be as valid as the other side's view. Science, While rooted in logical conclusions based on data and technology and thus more practical, does not prove the nonexistence of God any more or less than parts of the Bible prove the existence thereof. As the cliche' goes, there are three sides of every story: your side, my side, and the truth. Typically the truth is a combination of both sides.
I'm personally not going to debate whether God exists or not. I will strive as much as possible to keep as objective an approach as possible with my replies and responses and will not dismiss anyone's claims as being wrong because honestly, it is very possible (while most atheists will never accept this possibility) That your "logical" science only has filled in the blanks of what could not have been proven at the time the bible was written. will continue to believe what I believe as it is what is sustaining my life right now and when it no longer does that then I will change them.
The thing about things of the spirit, one's proof will only be proof to others who have had a spiritual experience similar to yours. Those who have had an epiphany which didn't include their reasoning to complete, I call an Epiphany Caused Choice, can not accept the proof of someone who has. Anyone who have had an epiphany without reasoning will be able to identify with those of others who have also had one.
After my Epiphany Caused Choice in 1973 I became able to integrate all types of things into my understanding of life which those who have only had an epiphany -- {the religious} -- or never had one -- scientists} -- cannot grasp. That's why what I say makes no sense to neither the religious nor scientists.Thank you for your response. And believe it or not, You make total sense to me even if I may or may not disagree with certain points. At the same time, I like to think that I am open minded enough to not dismiss or disrespect other's opinions as invalid, just different from my own
Before Columbus discovered America, we believed the world stretched from Spain to India. Five thousand years ago, when this flood was supposed to have occurred, we believed the world stretched from Egypt to Babylon. The world as they knew it probably did flood, and it would have been recorded as such, and attributed to the gods as all cataclysmic events have been by all cultures. The first accounts of the flood are not in the Bible, they're from Sumer/Babylon. These original accounts attribute the flood to a multitude of different gods. The writers of the Bible had nothing apart from these epic Sumerian stories to work with.
If you think that area may have flooded at one time, you need to take a good look at a topographical map.
Long before a significant portion of Mt. Arrarat is under water that water will find the Mediterranean. At the point, the Mediterranean also needs to be under 10,000 feet of water, which means all the oceans do. Which, of course, means nearly all the land surface on earth does as well.
Far more likely is that some river flooded, taking a village or two with it. Some guy had a small boat (for fishing, maybe), put his family and maybe a goat or two on it, and floated out the flood. Or maybe on the roof of his destroyed hut.
The story then gets blown completely out of proportion (after all, it's Noah himself telling the tale, or perhaps his kids). It becomes a supernatural work of God, striking fear into anyone that doesn't listen when Noah speaks.No matter how you look at it, local or entire earth flood it makes no sense. The only way you could have a local flood that covers mountains is if the entire area was in a huge valley that contained the water. No such valley exists so that's that. There is not enough water on the earth to cover every mountain, not to mention what would have to the fresh water lakes if it did happen, so that's out of the question as well. It's just a story told to people how couldn't know any better.
That's about the size of it. You can't cover the mountains in that area, or even a significant portion of them, without covering the entire world save for a few high mountain peaks.
You certainly can't kill all the animals and peoples throughout the world, either, with a single flood. Or any flood as some of those animals live at such elevations no flood could ever reach them.
I'm not sure your topological argument has any substance. Highland areas flood all the time, and that's because it takes the water time to run anywhere. If the Mediterranean is the nearest area of low ground, it would have gone there, but not instantaneously...
It would have been the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris that would have flooded, since those are the rivers that Sumerian civilization was built upon.
Mount Ararat is the mountain claimed in the Jewish version to be the resting place of the ark. That isn't the original version of the story though. A different mountain was claimed in the older Sumerian version, and it's not a translated name either. Nevertheless, I'm not claiming the accuracy of any story that says the mountains were completely flooded. In all likelihood, they were the nearest ground to a boat (ark) that wasn't flooded, and the story was elaborated.
The region from the Gulf to the Med could have been largely submerged, while the mountains to the north remained dry.Hmm actually, from looking at a topological map, there are mountains on the Mediterranean coast, so your argument is completely wrong anyway. The flood would have occurred in the region now known as Iraq (Sumer/Babylon).
The likely story is waters in the Persian Gulf were raised, possibly due to melting ice. This caused the Rivers Euphrates and Tigris to burst their banks and flood the majority of Sumerian civilization some time before 4,000 B.C.Of course there are mountains - that is the point.
Those mountains, however, aren't a solid wall at 10,000 feet or whatever - there are passes and valleys through them as there all mountain ranges. That's where the water will go, long before the peaks are reached - through the passes and into the Mediterranean Sea.
As far as the Persian gulf flooding mountain top high - you do know that it empties into the Arabian Sea, which turns into the Indian Ocean, which is then connected to all the other oceans? Same thing - long before the Persian gulf can get more than a few feet above normal it will have flooded the entire world.
It could conceivably cause the Euphrates and Tigris to flood, wiping out a few villages, which is just what I said. No thousands of feet of water, no ark high up on the mountains of Arrarat, just a big flood that killed a relative handful of people. Happens all the time on every continent in the world.Most of their cities were built around the rivers for obvious reasons, so it was probably more than a few villages. Smaller floods would have been routine, so why write a story about another routine flood?
Yes, the Persian Gulf empties into the Arabian Sea. I didn't say it "flooded mountain top high". I thought I made it clear I'm not defending that argument.
The last ice age ended about 12,500 years ago, and likely left small ice sheets on the mountains in Turkey to the north. Melting ice could have caused the Tigris and Euphrates to flood extensively, with the water running off into the Gulf. I really doubt there was a run off through the mountains to the West. Even the valleys will be higher ground.
The map I'm looking at is here: http://www2.ivcc.edu/gender2001/Mesopotamia.htm
Scroll down for the topological map. The two rivers come together around the most densely populated area. The result could have been pretty catastrophic.Absolutely catastrophic for those residents. I just meant that in terms of world wide population it wouldn't mean much. The Americas were occupied then, as was Asia, Europe and even Australia.
There is also the problem of drowning entire towns; floods that large very seldom happen that quickly and people have time to get out. It does happen, though - the bonneville flood that drained much of the state of Utah took only a few days to reach the ocean and would have drowned anyone in any of the valleys between Utah and the Pacific with no chance of escape.
You're right about ice, too - doesn't Arrarat have a glacier on it even today? If a good sized lake formed, held back by ice, when the ice dam broke it would make a virtually inescapable flood for many miles downstream.Pictures of Ararat imply it has ice on it today. When I looked into the last ice age, it showed significant ice coverage on those mountains, so I think it's a likely account of what happened. Even without a lake, the sheer volume of ice melting could have overloaded the rivers. I expect there were floods elsewhere at the end of the ice age that weren't recorded (elaborated) in writing. The Sumerians invented writing, and were probably the first civilization on Earth based on genetic data that shows the first crops were grown there.
You are forgetting that the flood was caused by rain in both gilgamesh and bible. melting ice does not rain down.
Are you forgetting that there never was a flood that covered/enveloped any mountains?
Well both stories also claimed Noah (Atrahasis) took all the animals of the Earth on board a boat. Quite frankly, that's ridiculous. More likely, if there was a boat, then Noah tried to save some of his livestock. As for the rain, sure, it could have been raining at the time. People back then probably wouldn't have had any other explanation for the water (if there was a flood at all).
well you see, we have the Gilgamesh account of the flood and the bible so safe to assume there was flood. Odd though that no one mentions how strange it would be to build an ark so many miles from water, in fact in the middle of a desert. Both state rain caused the flood and not melting ice. The bibles rendition way surpasses Gilgamesh: one point is the Gilgamesh boat isn't able to float and the massive amount of detail given to the arks measurements etc indicates a first hand account. Gilgamesh reads more like a readers digest version for children, but secular support for a flood it is indeed. Since no one seems to think the translated words of gilgamesh are incorrect (and yet the bibles words are not trusted the same way) we can assume that what is written in the account is an account of a major flood, howbeit they may have resided at the edge of the flood, since the geography could have been very much different before the flood than after.
As to the animals that were taken on Noahs ark.. the word phyla wasn't created yet. Scientific classification is not all that simple and wasn't common knowledge in noahs time, the reason why God brought the animals and noah didn't go get them himself, hehe, therefore they would use the words available at that time.
http://blog.projectnoah.org/post/313388 … sification
Project Noah (not religious) has some good basic reading about scientific classification.
To summarize my point, Not every animal in the world was brought to the ark only the necessary animals were; those that represented classes and/or species of phyla of that localized area.Except the Gilgamesh account was written a thousand years before the Biblical account, and the Biblical account appears to plagiarize. It's not two separate accounts at all. How can the Biblical story be anything other than second hand? Also some dimensions are given in the Gilgamesh account.
the earliest tablets of gilgamesh are around 2,000 bce or 18th century bce or a conservative estimation at 1400bce.
The Biblical Flood was 1656 years after Creation, Irish archbishop James Ussher calculated that the creation of the world took place in 4004 BC. If 1656 is deducted from 4004 then the worldwide flood of Noah's time was around 2348 BC
The time for the two events are not thousands of years apart.
The time of the writing of Genesis is 1440bce.
Now recall the Hebrews were slaves to the Egyptians without land or identity of their own, they were just slaves. The account was written after the Egyptian exodus. considering all the numbers and the depth of the account in the bible, this could not be a plagiarized account. There is too much information. Too much scrupulous detail. Indeed it seems to be an account that only the initiator (God) of such a flood could have recanted. Even an eyewitness would not know the dimensions of the boat to this extreme. And God did this for a purpose. Jesus mentions the occurance of Noahs flood.
I agree that the writers of gilgamesh could have written about the flood much earlier, having their own civilization while the Hebrews were in bondage to Egypt, but as one who has read both, the bibles account is much more succinct and sober and elaborate that to compare the two and say the bible is plagiarized to me is just assumptive hogwash.
The dimensions you mention in the gilgamesh account are not worth mentioning, but with a few minutes of time you can read about this square boat that is top heavy, online, assuming of course that this document is translated correctly which is luxury the bible is not allowed to have.
God made the flood, and recited the information = first hand account.So if I write a story today about a great flood, which I say occurred in 3,000 B.C., then this makes my story the original? That's basically what you're saying. The Archbishop said the Biblical flood occurred before Gilgamesh was written, therefore the later Biblical story is the original? I hope you can see where that logic falls down.
Whether it's 1,000 years or 600, the Sumerian account came first. I agree that the Biblical account has more detail, but what does that prove? It suggests they took the original and added some details to it. However, many of the details are the same, and some of it is even plagiarized, e.g.
Atrahasis: The gods did smell the savor sweet, the gods gathered round like flies around the man making sacrifice.
Noah: And the LORD smelled a sweet savor; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake.
The Old Testament writer obviously used the Epic of Atrahasis and the Epic of Gilgamesh as source material. Abraham was even born in a Sumerian city, so he would have had access to it if he'd had anything to do with the authorship.
And if you make up exact dimensions for a boat, that doesn't make it true. The original story said the boat was square, so this is one example where the later story changed the details. I see you mention this, so why do you think the newer version is correct? The addition of details doesn't make it more true. I could add that Noah fed the animals from hanging baskets, while changing a number of other details. That doesn't make my account any truer.
first, you're setting up a strawman - NO ONE here claimed that gilgamesh was history, so 2 fairy tales don't make a fact. just because some people believe something doesnt make it true
the point about the animals is that if you're going to use the bible as a source then you cant cherry pick which sentence are true and which are not.
better do some research - the last ice age ended 10-15 thousand years ago and there were no significant ice sheets in turkey even at that time. major flooding from any mountain snow is extremely implausible. geologically, such a major event would have resulted in a long term process like the grand canyon. same for your special pleading about villages - there is just NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE for any catastrophe on the scale of the bible myth.
I suggest you start with Wikipedia, "last glacial period", then look here: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/p1386g/turkey.pdf
Then when you're done with your introductory research, I would suggest re-reading the posts in this thread, and making an effort to understand what people are arguing for. Or do you think I'm a Christian? Sigh... you "us vs them" atheists are just as thick as Christians. Well surprise! I don't think there is any HISTORICAL EVIDENCE (lol caps) of a Biblical scale catastrophe you muppet.
When you're done with that, try being less of a dick next time.I apologize for the insults, but your insinuations made me angry. Still, baiting someone into an angry reply and reporting them for it isn't much better.
Do I really have to quote what I just linked? Fine, "To the east the Caucasus and the mountains of Turkey and Iran were capped by local ice fields or small ice sheets."
Hell, just look at the map at the top of the Wikipedia page. You don't even have to read it. If you don't like Wikipedia, or it's not good enough for you, use the other link I gave you.
Anyway, you accused me of being a Bible thumping Christian with your post, you said I did some "special pleading" with one of my arguments, and insulted my intelligence with your "better do some research" comment.
I'm glad you've told me you're reporting me. Now I can do the same. Just wow though... why dish it out if you can't take it?
Now we've both wasted the time of moderators who have better things to do.
just like atlantis but people believe in that too.
Seems to me that if a tantamount tragedy did occur back in those times there just might not be any secular evidence because of a vast wipe out. In the case of noahs ark, to say there is no evidence is actually evidence LOL LOL.. hehe.. how odd is that? And yet we have some evidence called gilgamesh, so we have both the attestation of no evidence and some evidence leading us to the conclusion there was no flood. Does that make sense?point is, the people around the world who were LIVING in the area at the time of the alleged flood never bothered to mention it; there's no archaeological evidence of a major catastrophe that wiped out even ONE civilization in this mythical flood, much less the entire world
nope - first, melting ice could only cause a worldwide flood. even the golan heights and other mtn ranges of syria and lebanon could not have been covered by a flood; same for jerusalem. while the tigris/euphrates commonly flooded [before modern dams], like the nile, never was there a flood recorded that wiped out a civilization, much less the entire world - yet we have historical records that cover the period of the alleged flood
i've traveled extensively in turkey & the mideast, and there are few places where a massive flood would ever be possible - much of it is mountainous, not just the peaks like araratAre you talking to me? I never endorsed the idea of a worldwide flood, or the idea of mountains being submerged. Whoever said Jerusalem needed to be flooded? The Sumerian civilization was to the east, and it was their story of the great flood that was plagiarized in the Old Testament. Sorry to waste your time, but try reading first.
I don't think you can look at the map today and say it exactly resembles the pre flood era. I don't think you can look at Pangaea and compare it to the continents of today and say that the geology is the same. I think there is a wide margin for geographic differences between then and now.
If we google satellite the area in question we see what looks like massive run down areas possibly caused by water.Seriously? Pangaea was millions of years ago....
yah
The problem i have with a millions of year old earth is that i cannot comprehend that much time going by before God creates man. I can see a 'process of time' within the first 3 'days' or stages of creation.
I enjoy the idea of Pangaea splitting at the time of the flood. Another good reason for a flood and a good protection for noah from the cataclysmic events that occurred during the flood. There is no doubt the continents were all joined together and the bible supports that.
Bible says a firmament surrounded the earth and when this firmament split it caused rain to make the flood. A water barrier around the earth would keep out certain cosmic rays, who knows what else, space debris i assume too.. but it might alter the effectiveness of mans ability to accurately date the earth. It seems in every measuring method there is some amount of guess work. As in the Miller experiment earths atmosphere was quite different than what that scientist thought it to be.
I mistrust science and the political agendas and goals of science more than the bible.
So far i have not found blatant contradictions between bible and science.I don't think science can accommodate the ideas you enjoy and the ideas you have a problem with. What you want to be true doesn't dictate what is true.
There is a lot of that going around.
But it might lead into what i call "persuasive evidence". Since there is no blatant opposition the theories i have are no less valuable than the theories science has. Remember theories are not facts.
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation. (from dictionary.com)
When i am unsure of exactness i am in no way trying to dictate what I think is true.
This may startle and amaze you: "What i want to be true, is truth". I do not want to make stuff up or conjure explanations. When i see a problem i dive into it and spend as much time as necessary to assess both sides of the situation. I enjoy truth and i dislike untruth.
LOl...I believe that there was a massive flood, but millieums before Noahs time. Unless Noah actually lived during the era the ridge lines began to show in the Grand Canyon, AZ. Here's a link. I'm really skeptical about biblical stories compared to scientific data. http://www.dennisflood.com/photos/get/2 … esert_view
I have read many articles on the grand canyon this url
http://www.grandcanyontreks.org/geology2.htm
is a bit old now but sums up what is stated by others quite nicely.
Its been a while since i researched the grand canyon information when i ceased my studies, i came to the same conclusions, "they just don't make sense".
A picture is worth a 1,000 words clarissa but that page and picture was very uninformative.The picture was to support the scientific facts about the water lines in the canyon. It took thousands of years for the water lines to form as the water receded. Noah is just a man in a story intended for Hebrews.
That's not what Jesus says
Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Matthew 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
And we have a geneology:
Luke 3:36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
The water lines appear to be there but much speculation arises around the whole thing inspite of the water lines. Pretty picture though.
Play time. I've done it before. Try me.
THIS THREAD IS DEAD- Lybrahposted 12 years ago0
You've got to have faith. There's no way to prove how old the earth truly is, nor is there anyway to prove that the flood did not happen, and of course, the ark is not around.
That is the key. One must ignore what evidence we DO have, ignore what we understand of physics,biology and chemistry, and simply declare that there is no proof. There IS no absolute proof either way of course (no one was there to video it), but there are mountains of evidence to be ignored.
Once that is done faith has an open door and we can declare a belief in whatever we want; we can choose to believe in the tale of Noah and the ark as the laws of physics and biology are no longer a consideration.There is not enough scientific evidence to prove or disprove anything about the world wide flood of Noah. Either way, it is conjecture and faith.
The question becomes "what is proof"? A video of the flood as it happens? Written records from more than one source? That the tale is a physical impossibility for dozens of reasons?
Everyone must decide for themselves. Those that believe it happened will ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary, point to the bible story that it did and to a shadow on the ground declaring it to be the ark as evidence that it did.
One way weighs actual evidence in making a determination of the most likely scenario, one way ignores it by claiming it isn't evidence at all, thereby giving faith a chance to make its determination. We all make our own choice which method to use.Hmmm. Given that the tale requires violation of natural laws in dozens of different ways, it's enough to weigh for me.
Others will, of course, declare that that is not evidence (ignore it in other words) and use faith to believe instead.God puts a lot of emphasis on faith. Faith is a huge part of the bible from cover to cover. All Gods people in OT and NT needed faith (and were rewarded)
Faith is huge to spiritual beings in this realm of physical existence. The two seem to be quite opposite.
So it doesn't bother me that there is opposition to everything and that fuzziness abounds.
Faith must be a tool to be used here and i think, in the afterlife as well, otherwise why need faith if it is only limited to this world? or if it has no explicit purpose.
So i can easily overlook dubious datings, controversies about if there was a flood and did jesus really exist? It doesn't bother me that God, in order to keep faith alive, has covered his tracks or not allowed for certainty. To christians we have other concrete aspects of Godliness to ascertain our faithfulness.Pick a faith, any faith, if you lived in the middle east, they just pick your faith for you.
You are exchanging faith for belief. Faith is applicable where faith (assurance about something) is needed as in a promise of God or even that God exists. Belief is an opinion or conviction, something believed.
Slight diffference, i hope i cleared this up.i hope i cleared this up.
lol lol LOL LOL HA haah ha at least your funny
More religious science
In the bible, the account of Noahs ark is quite lengthy and has incredible detail, considering Noah was not a ship builder nor a designer of boats. Computer generated imagery of the ark has rendered notable pictures, in 3 dimensions.
Pretty good stuff for a gardener. (genesis 9:20)
Clearly God inspired writings; Why God inspired?
In a world taken over by evil, violence and corruption, Noah was a righteous man. However, Noah wasn't just a righteous man, he was the only follower of God left on the earth. The Bible says he was blameless among the people of his time. It also says he walked with God.
Haven't seen or heard God speak... Think it impossible for God to work through Noah? Read the above qualifications.
Noahs ark is mentioned by Jesus.
I would say, it all happened just the way the bible claims.Wish I could see just one factor of your God's magic like this today
1. Turn salt water into fresh then back an forth without harming a fly
2. Took 4 other planet's water cover our earth with it, then got rid of it all.
(Hope God return all that water to those others planets from other Galaxies so they could live again too, or maybe they sinned too.)
3. Shoved millions of species of animals in a small boat including Dinosaurs, T Rex must have been so tamed and loved carrots.
4. All animal were able to breath 30,000 feet high and not freeze to death.
No animal got harmed in this wonderful spiritual journeyWelcome to the Hubpages A Driveby
sort of, miracle are high probabilities for example
Aliens and Bigfoot have higher probabilities than Yahweh has, for the mean-wail I'll worship the Vagina and the Sun
Now just hang on a minute! There could have been many more species on the Earth before T-Rex ate them all on Noah's Ark!
I was told by a pastor only dinosaurs babies were taken on to the boat. Then when they landed, the Tigers, Lions and Bears ate them all up.
Makes sense when there are no more carrots or plant life alive to eat, only the ARK'S animals.Noah was nine feet tall and his incest family too, yes that could have happen.
Why was none of this written in the good book?
Haha, it never ceases to amaze me how Christians will re-interpret their holy books when science makes them look stupid. Dinosaur babies! Of Course! The religion is now safe until science declares that dinosaurs were allergic to people. Then I guess God will have invented Biohazard suits for Noah and his family to handle the dinosaur babies with... Damn those pesky creationists!
I like the story about an afterlife in it, yet when the Yahweh God claims everything, followed by more horrible flood behavior at earth and terrorized most people with hell.
It's time to find a better God.You cannot find a better God.
Most moaning and complaining is about a God of Antiquity. Have you noticed what God is doing today? Do you omit the crucifixion on our behalf? Do you forget what Jesus said about love?
anyway if you want to find a better God may i suggest:
http://www.godchecker.com/
There are so many gods here.
lets look a few 'better' ones.
-Of course we know you won't find a better god with the Aztecs.
-I can't vouch for the egyptian gods for obvious reasons lol
-The greek gods are interesting but they are not spirit and very much flesh and blood, hmmm.
- The hindu gods, well heres an excerpt.
It's India for glitzy, glittery Gods. They're much larger than life. Especially the Hindu Gods. They are the Bollywood celebrities of eastern mythology.
After all, what's the point of being a God if you can't be a bit flash? So Gods of India have more arms, legs and heads than most other mythologies put together, from a modest four up to a thousand. INDRA, for example, has a thousand vaginas. That should make your eyes pop.
You might like that one.
Anyway try picking one that died for you out of all those. Try picking one that doesn't put all the onus on you for your salvation. Pick one that isn't works based or full of rituals. Pick one that allows you to mess up, forgives and then restores you to try again. Find some that are responsible for creating the world.
When you find one that can do all these things and more, welcome to Jesus.I already found the best God of all, me
Everyone is God, we can respect everyone equally almighty then,
Try itWipe out the planet again to prove God loves you.
Good luck with that coarse of action, the world has pass 7 billion, time to die.
Yeahhh I'll choose another way to the spirit world
Have I noticed what God is doing today? Sure. He's:
murdering gays because He created them sinful.
Prohibiting the gaining of knowledge in schools, preferring silly tales from long ago.
Killing doctors trying to help people.
Causing enormous heartache at the funerals of fallen veterans.
Stoning young girls for going to school or for being raped.
I could go on, but you get the point. Of course, I'm sure that the claim is that "God isn't doing those horrible things, evil people are" but those same people disagree and have as much truth on their side as you can exhibit on yours.
So who should I believe? Those that are actually doing something as God commands or someone who just talks but speaks words I pretty much agree with morally? The morality I came up without using God's help in doing so?Who should you believe
First lets examine the false premise that God is doing these things by allowing them to happen.
God is in a real pickle because He gets blamed for everything. Blame is clearly misplaced. When it comes to any of the atrocities that you have mentioned, which when biblically based do not happen as you mention them; how is God supposed to intervene?
you see, if God smites then he gets blamed for smiting. If God teleports people to another location for their wrong thoughts, well you can see the mess that would make, so many people and so many frequent teleports. I suppose the only way for God to alleviate the pain in the world is to just bring his kingdom down here right now and start the whole millennial kingdom, in fact why bother with the millennial kingdom at all.. just smite the earth, end the suffering and start the judgments now. So where do you stand at judgment? Is this what you want? Then i suppose God would be blamed for ending lives prematurely and putting them into a place of judgment. Now i suppose God will be blamed for judging? Clearly God is in a no win situation when it comes to earthy suffering or alleviation of suffering. For example a father enjoys boys (no one knows about this) but one day dies. God is blamed for killing him. A person rants against God and one day passes away. God is blamed again. God comes out of his throne room, hovers over the earth and dictates what people should do, which is pretty much what mans laws do yet these laws you decided that come up morally without Gods help are clearly not doing the job they were designed to do. Even God tried this avenue.. the Law of Moses remember. So we have a planet of people too scared to make angry the hovering God over all the earth and His ways they clearly are forced into because God will smite them as he passes by and truly he is everywhere. Does this scenario in any way exhibit any form of love? Is there any grace or mercy extended to people and is every one happy that the hovering God is treating them like obedient robots?
There is no other scenario than what is happening now whereby people will be happy and have charge over their own lives. Do you understand the picture i am trying in few words to show you?
Which life do you want? A hovering God monitoring your every move with the penalty of immediate retribution if you lust after another mans wife (even though as you see her on the street you do not know if she is married or not) Is the magical finger of God supposed to tap you on the shoulder and glow with a firey brightness? The point i am trying to make is that God is doing the best he can without making your life too miserable, which would be the end result if he were to just inflict his holy ways upon you without you being given any choice in any matter. Is it not enough that he has been with humankind since the beginning? Or that he sacrificed himself upon a cross to make the way to Him easier?
Should God forsake his holiness and just allow people to live their lives without the worry of sinful activitiy? Well God can do this and keep His holiness too, reserving judgment for a time after each person has spent their whole lifetime refusing or accepting Him.
So again you see, free moral agency is important not just for a few but for all people and because of that hideous things happen BUT God has promised and IS there to help those who need his help. As i have stated before, believe in luck, chance, fortune or destiny (although destiny is a much more complicated and deeper issue than the aforementioned) it is all God. Need healing in your life? God clearly heals.
As to who you should believe. Believe what you know of God to be true. You know what God should be like, so find out what God is like. Be teachable, be open, learn.. grow.. and you will find Gods love inspite of what is happening around the world.
With God, ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. Even a little ark with two of every animal on it, and a worldwide flood.
True; faith declares that all things are possible, even when they aren't.
That was the point: by ignoring our experience, and knowledge of how the universe works we can declare it happened if we have faith it did.even when they aren't.... how interesting.
In the limited world of physicality, materialism, science there are certainly many, some, alot, majority of things that cannot happen and which are not possible.
When reading the bible one can certainly read that nothing is impossible where God is concerned. Walls come crashing down by trumpets, A land of goshen remains plague free as predicted, People drink water from rocks, A messiah enters the world, and in the beginning God created.
The real world that God lives in is not bounded nor limited at all.
How strangely curious that His people should pick up on this.
How even stranger that those who are not His people should not also pick up on this.Oh, we did pick up on that. And put it in the same file as the stories about Hogwarts.
How curious that His people haven't done the same...I looked up hogwarts (spelled hog warts) and couldn't find an explanation of why you used this, perhaps you meant hog wash. If you were referring to a movie well I don't blame you for discounting magical movies produced by hollywood, although interesting to the imagination and probably entertaining we both understand what movies are designed for, viewing pleasure. I wanted to know what ancient manuscripts this harry potter is based upon, so i looked it up. I discovered it is a fictional book written by j.k rowlings.
So perhaps an answer to the curious question of "why Gods people haven't done the same" could possibly be:
The Source behind the book
Now we know that the bible is not the only reason 'His people haven't done the same' and in my estimation using only a portion of data to come to a conclusion is dangerous territory usually leading to wrongful conclusions, therefore, I would like to suggest that getting to know the Source of the bible and then letting the answers to the book sort themselves out later would be a more viable course of action. It is a backward work to get the book solved first and then wonder about the Source. Source first and then book is a better solution and plausible data toward finding out more before filing.
yes - I believe there was a great flood created by humans.
yes - I believe those humans lived much longer than we do today because they were more advanced technically.
yes - I believe that there are remnants of the great flood to be discovered.
I also believe that the current human race is on the same path that created this disaster.
We are developing technology that transforms the earth into a power production system based on pressure components. We all know what happens when you put too much pressure into a balloon. The same could happen to the earth as man changes the composure of it.Well there is certainly proof of a catastrophic event happening on earth and since most of our world is water it would make sense to be a flood
??? It requires about 4 times the volume of water in all the oceans - how does it then make sense to decide there was a flood? It would seem to make more sense that it was NOT a flood as described if there isn't enough water to create the conditions listed?
Plus of course, there is no proof or even slight evidence of a world wide catastrophe anywhere near the time frame given...one how do you know it takes 4 times MORE?
Two how do you think the ice age came about? Approx 10,000 years ago which is around the days of the flood
Three Why do you think almost every single civilisation of that time talks about a flood?
It makes perfect sense that there was a worldwide flood when you consider the earths terrain and the completely messed up weather system that we have nowadays.I wonder what a world wide flood would to to fresh water lakes or the fish in the fresh water lakes? I'd also like to know where all that water would go?
What makes you think the water from the flood was salty to begin with?
also the water didn't just come from rain it also came from the ground so don't just think about the surface of the world think about the depth of the sea too which has no doubt increased in sizeI didn't say the rain was salty. I said a flood such as that would mix salt water from the ocean with fresh water from lakes. All fresh water lakes would be contaminated with salt water.
I like how you state that the water came from the ground as well. Where did you get this information?With the amount of water necessary all bodies of water, salt or fresh, will become brackish. All marine life, salt or fresh, would die save those very few plants that float in brackish water but are not anchored by roots.
Whales, sharks, tuna, trout, bass, water cress, seaweed, - all gone. Noah had better have one whopping big boat (2 blue whales will fill it) and be one heck of a fisherman as well.Genesis 6:17 - "And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the EARTH, to destroy all FLESH, wherein is the BREATH OF LIFE, from under heaven (SKY); and every thing that is in the earth (LAND) shall die."
Genesis 7:15 - "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the BREATH OF LIFE."
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the BREATH OF LIFE; and man became a living soul.
Genesis 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the BREATH OF LIFE.
Genesis 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the BREATH OF LIFE, of all that was in the DRY LAND, died.
2)
Another way to consider it is to look at the kinds of animals God made in the first chapter of Genesis and the kinds that are taken on the ark. Five kinds of animals are created: fish, fowl, beasts, cattle, and creeping things. In Genesis 7:14, God lists the categories of animals taken on the ark: "They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort." You will notice that four of the five categories are mentioned with the fish being left out. They were not included. Clearly, enough of these sea creatures would be able to survive the flood so as to make their preservation in the ark unnecessary.
I don't mind discussing with you but please make sound discussion based on some knowledge of what you speak of. this way you will sound less like one who raves for the sake of argument.
There is no way I'm going to read through the 700+ posts here.
I'm just really curious. And I am serious. Is there really anyone here that doesn't believe the earth is several billion years old? If so, please post. I'd like to chat with you.thats not the question, the forum is about noah's flood not a hillbilly version of the genesis account.
OK.
My guess is that there was a flood. But not world-wide. But the experience was handed down through the generations. Our species tends to exaggerate things...
i can understand your reluctance to read all that, and i wouldnt have if i didnt start when the pile was much smaller - but unfortunately there are MANY people here, and in the US in general who actually do hold these views; and more unfortunately, they vote, serve on juries and some even sit on the congressional science & tech committees. so it's not just an idle pastime to challenge ignorance
Not only that but there is a multimillion-dollar "nonprofit" creationism industry dedicated to preserving this mass ignorance. This industry's tactics include everything from opening creation museums to lobbying state legislatures to hinder the teaching of science in public schools.
You can see the results of their handiwork right here in this thread.
You guys are really into this, aren't you?
Such a waste of time and life.
I may come back here to help you. Or not. Poke me with a stick. Or not.Shall we conspire to close down this thread?
Not yet, I'm doing a sculpture called Weird Science, it's about Religious Science.
Everyone wonders how the water could have covered the mountains, and where the water could have gone, but this is due to their assumptions about the pre-flood world being basically as it is today. A world with what we would consider hills as the highest ground and land over most of the earth with water below it, could easily be covered with that water when the "fountains of the deep broke open".
Eventually the biblical account says God lifted the mountains up, lowered the valleys down, (now oceans), and the water hasted away. Lifted up mountains complete with petrified clams, still closed indicating quick death, buried in sedimentary rock. These have even been found high on Mt. Everest.
If the earth were originally much smoother, with the variation from the highest land to the deepest "ocean" being a mile or so, we would have enough water still present to cover the entire earth, several miles deep. Water rushing away, as in the transition described in scripture, which cleared the water to provide dry land again, would be responsible for much of the topography we currently see, including the Grand Canyon.
Remember this premise is based on their being a God responsible for creation. If He is responsible for all of creation in the first place, implementing the flood is very "small potatoes".Okay this is getting interesting. Now please explain how the fresh water lakes were not contaminated with salty ocean water.
Consider the portion of what science calls "evolution" that they can document is basically implementation of the incredible adaptability engineered into organisms by God. We see bacteria that "adapts" to antibiotics, although it does so by losing information and becomes a weaker bacteria in normal situations, but stronger when faced the the antibiotic in question.
If all water started more or less as fresh water, as the characteristics of the water changed, creatures would adapt to their new environment too. Rain causing erosion increases the salt in the oceans over time, and eventually you end up with a wider discrepancy between characteristics of those creatures in the ocean and those in fresh water.
Would the water "adapt," and become "saltier," as the "environment," "changed," and "adapted," to "become," different," over "time."? Somehow I think if we test that theory and put a nice bass into salt water it will "adapt" by becoming fish food.
Even if we slowly increase the salt content over 40 days (not what the bass will see when it's washed into the sea by a constant waterfall all over earth) it will still become fish food, not a living organism.Oceans are still becoming saltier, so it is a gradual progression. Originally the flood water would have had a much lower salt content. Adaptations would have occurred after the bodies of water were separated. Evolutionists basically believe rocks can come alive with time and frogs became princes, so this should not be too much of a stretch for them, I wouldn't think. Also the waters were on the earth much longer than 40 days...that was just how long it rained.
Yes, it rained for 40 days, which is about enough time to thoroughly mix all the water. Fresh has become salt, and the poor bass dies.
Doesn't matter, though - give that poor bass a year of slowly increasing salt content and it will still died. As will the tuna and lobster as the whole earth is now brackish. Salmon might survive, though - they've adapted to tolerate going back and forth.If the area of the flood were say a deeper basin than today also one might assume the mountain ranges to be different then than now, then there would be no question of the salt water getting into the basin, but, that when the continents split the water in the basin would pour out. I do not consider that the rain was salt water but fresh water and hence partial desalination if any desalination of the oceans would occur.
Evolution doesn't happen like that my friend. Drop a fresh water fish in a salt water tank and see what happens. Perhaps you should rethink this flood thing?
Your missing the point, I am saying there was one type of fish, (as in not "salt water" or "fresh water", but some combination). As the water changed, the fish adapted. After all this time, taking one fully adapted to a new environment, which has also increased in salt over the years, and drop it into the others environment and the result will not be good. Adaptations would occur both ways...those in water that became saltier, and that which became less salty.
No huhu. Erect a 5 mile high forcefield around all land masses. You will also need one over the ocean, to keep out the miles of fresh water or it goes brackish and kills everything in the sea. Along the way you install heaters and coolers (depending on location) to keep the water temperature at the same level; most fish are extremely intolerant of the temperature changes you can expect to see.
Actually, wouldn't it be far easier to simply knock old Noah out for a few days and transport him to the wilds of northern Europe? Give him a little hallucination along the way, one about floating a boat?temperature change would not occur or very slight change, since we are talking about a very very hot climate. How do you suppose cold water even if it is rain water. Not all rain water is cold water after saturating upon desert ground for over 40 days. And still there may not be enough water to desalinate the entire globes salt water.
If we are talking about a world wide flood 5 miles deep we certainly ARE talking temperature changes. Beginning with the fact that the last couple of miles will fall as snow; that's the form water takes at 20,000' elevation in Noah's day as well as ours. In addition, water falling at that rate will (as an example) wash all the trout in the snake river right into the sea, where the temperature is far above that of the river they were in.
As far as desalinating the ocean; do the math. Add a billion cubic miles of water to the 300 million currently in the oceans. Calculate the new salinity and you will find only brackish water, water that marine life cannot live in any more than fresh water fish can.
Of course if we are postulating only a heavy rain for a few miles around Noah none of that will happen.
bBereanIs
It would take four other simular size planet's water to cover the our planet earth to the height of Mount Everst. Ok, Lets say Yahweh is all powerful and takes water from 4 other planets from some other Galaxy
If God is omnipotent (all-powerful)? Why can't he do-
Jeremiah 32:27 and Matthew 19:26
But Judges 1:19 says that the Lord was unable to help the men of Judah drive out the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots. But, in Joshua 10:12, God makes the sun stand still in the sky so that Joshua can get all his killing done before dark. One would have to ask themselves, "if God can make the sun stand still for Joshua to attain a military victory, why did he not do something as simple as destroy a few iron chariots?Unfortunately, unless the claim is that God made all those geographical changes with the intent to fool man into not believing in the Noah story it doesn't work. Those changes are far, far older (by millions of years) than the old tale.
OK, did not spell Everest right
Mount Everest's is at 29,035 feet, It would takes four times the amount of water on earth to cover the earth to the height of Mount Everest.
Where dose God get all that water from? What other planets other than in our planets in our Galaxy?It takes 1,000,000,000 cubic miles. A ball just about the size of Pluto.
Do you know if Pluto is "dirt" or just ice...?
*edit* Failing that, comets are mostly ice. Did God bring them in and then fling (big) buckets full into space, in those odd orbits that bring them back in towards the sun periodically?The Earth's moon is larger than Pluto
Only humans play dice with the Universe
Amazing. So you caught the misspelling of Everest, but in three attempts missed the premise of the post in question.
wait wait wait. You're saying there was one kind of fish...and then, after the flood it - what - EVOLVED? The evolution that you claim is "just a theory" and it can't be proven or demonstrated? That evolution? The evolution that you continually tear down and mock despite all the sources that have been provided to you? So out of a goldfish we magically got a blue whale? Isn't that the kind of evidence that you were asking me for? Congrats. You just provided it.
Pretty clear you didn't read all the posts either. I am sensing a theme I was forewarned of. Lesson learned.
Oh good..so you did read it. Thank you Julie.
I apologize for throwing that out when I can't provide a quick explanation. I have had more moments available to comment on the forums in the last couple days than usual, so I have contributed in several. Responses have been very interesting to me...not as much in what has been said, but more in the selective manner in which some of the material is acknowledged but often twisted, while other things are not seen or not comprehended at all, even if repeated or rephrased. I realize, you and others may feel the same about me. I have no problem with that.
I started taking notes regarding this, for a new hub. One more I don't have time to write, but at least I will have notes on it when I do. I am more fascinated with the folks and how they reason and express themselves than the actual topics.
Funny how creationists have no problem accepting evolution when it's convenient, isn't it?
It's even funnier if you imagine the sentence above being spoken by Dana Carvey's "church lady" character from the early 90s.
The answer for Judges 1:19 is in:
Judges 2:2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this?
When looking at Judges 1:19 mention is made of metal chariots, which, i assume would be quite an obstacle. We see previously before vs 19 leagues are being made and Gods voice is not being obeyed.
We see after vs 19, the many, i call them 'defeats' of the israel army because Gods words were not being obeyed.
Specifically to Judges 1:19 the peoples hearts failed them for the strength of the metal chariots. This is to say that when one walks in Gods ways, confidence (David and Golliath for example) is abundant, but as in the case of:
Joshua 7:20 And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done:
we see that previously:
Joshua 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.
Joshua 7:10 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Get thee up; wherefore liest thou thus upon thy face?
Joshua 7:11 Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed my covenant which I commanded them: for they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stolen, and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuff.
So if we say that God could not deliver.. we go against a ton of scripture that says God can deliver, so to ask why God could not deliver the answer is available.
Because of sin. Gods not delivering is his judgment upon sinful activity.CastlePaloma,
It is almost ironic that the same attitude and spirit that caused billions of people to perish in the days of Noah is what Satan uses today to try and disprove those days happened. They were more scientifically advanced than perhaps we are today. And they talked and acted just like you and billions of others talk today; proving there was no possibility of rain, much less enough water in the universe to cause the antediluvian world's destruction. Surely persuading many who claimed to believe Noah, much like those Christians today are persuaded that the world wasn't entirely covered with water as the scriptures say, so at the end there was only 7 who believed Noah. As the judgement of God drew nearer, the true believers became fewer and fewer in number because of all the scientific, lukewarm religious, and outright atheistic people's "proofs" that Noah was a liar.
At the beginning of Christ's ministry there were multitudes following Him, but by the time He fulfilled His ministry there was only eleven with Him and they all fled. That same Jesus said that, "as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the coming of the Son of Man."
Judges 1:19 is referring to Judah not God. "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron." Obviously if God wanted Judah to drive them out of the valley He would have allowed it.
Exodus 23:30 - "By little and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased, and inherit the land."Bro & Pool
"The LORD was with the people of Judah, and they took possession of the hill country. But they failed to drive out the people living in the plains, who had iron chariots.. Just more bad jobs in translation and verses, sorry not blind enough to convert
Why is there suffering in the world if God is all powerful and loving. Why doesn't He stop it, suffering comes in three simple categories: emotional, mental, and physical suffering. The variety of suffering evil people, disease, earthquakes, floods, etc I mastered from all that suffering better than the average person. What possible explanations for God to allows Hell, Satan and Noah’s suffering to the 100 billion people who ever lived on Earth, none of them can satisfy everyone. Everything has a reason Why would God various reasons offered to account for suffering and evil in the world unless it all about controlling the people by fear, not by true love.Love warns people of impending disaster.
Moms do it all the time.
If i see a speeding car heading toward you, do i?
a) push you out of the way
b) yell for you to watch out!
c) wave and wish you a nice trip
---- side note: i would choose a or b depending on the closeness of the vehicle.----
Now, i agree that the catholic pagantology has done much damage to the Christian way, obviously they are no closer to God than an unrepentant pedophile, but as is noticeable on hubpages and by doing web research, information to the contrary about catholicisms doctrines can be easily found and once found you could begin to separate them from christianity at large. Now you have reason to wonder, openly about other notions you have.
You could go here to investigate hell.
http://www.realdevil.info/2-5.htm (I highly recommend it)
Part of your problem about not believing in hell or satan is that you continually bring them up and you stick to them like glue. Clearly there is no changing your chant and your ability to parrot this wrong belief like some Evangelical christian has no end. If you seriously want to end the hell conflict then do something about it and please stop perpetuating it. Take one step forward in actually learning something about what you are always bull horning and perhaps the rest will fall into line about the other incorrect issues you have with bible basics.
Remember it doesn't matter beans what others are doing in the Christian arena (God is working as God sees fit, here a little and there a little) but what you do is whats important. IF a person has a doctrine about dinosaur babies... what is that to you? What are you doing is important and clearly parroting false doctrines and making like every single christian on the earth believes them is irrational.
Many of your comments are clearly not researched and shallow quips of humor, without any bible insight at all.
Lets have some serious discussion from people who actually know what they are talking about. In Love
Again... http://www.realdevil.info/2-5.htm ... go here.Bro
Did you go Jehovah's Witnesses on me and did not tell me
The Jehovah's Witnesses are the only "christian" sect that does not believe in the existence of a place of eternal torment and punishment.
Wiki says
Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe that Satan lives in Hell or that he has been given ... hell (hades or sheol) is not a place of fiery torment, but rather the "common grave of mankind", a place ..... "Eternal Torment
I'll torment you only a tiny little bit, if you try to torment others forever or if your JW it's Ok, I'll allow you at my door for just 10 minutesNo i did not. I just gave you some good advice. I don't know where you got the JW stuff from.. I guess you just did not research again and as usual purported what you thought to be true.
JW are not the only christian sect etc.. the link was not JW. Please try to better inform yourself before you post.
Castle,
All ya gotta do is read the Bible. Its all in there. This Almighty God that we believe in didn't just make laws, allow free moral agency, come down and pay the penalty for all our sin and then just say...Ah, don't worry, I was only kidding. Everything you see in this dimension is a type of the others.
The Bible said that ALL things were made by Him, For Him, and there is nothing made that is not for His purpose. Trust Him and He will lead you, fight Him and you may grieve Him for the last time. It's not a myth. It is so serious and so real that there is almost no words to describe the joy of having Him be revealed to you and the hell of giving in to Satan's lies. This goes deep and I am not here to write a novel.
I will say this. The Word of God is real and its for a relationship between you and Him. Not you and the church, or you and the pastor, or you and your buddies that believe. No, you and Him. He may let your best friends backslide to let you see that you can't put your trust in them. It's Him alone. Try Him with a pure heart and in sincerity and see. Put a fleece before Him and if you are of a sincere heart you will be amazed.
Love everybody you can love with a godly love (not a dotey wishy washy spirit) but a genuine love.
If your brother is wrong, the Bible says to rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. Serving Christ is not becoming a pushover. Its becoming a prisoner of Jesus Christ and being led by the Spirit. God bless you.
The ark today is Jesus Christ and Him alone. Your church or creed will leave you outside just like in the days of Noah if you don't have Him on the inside!So Christianity = prison. Got it.
I'll go ahead and assume you don't work in marketing.Marriage is the same thing. Its a labour of Love not a torment. I'm honored to serve my wife and children in the capacity that God allows. Its not a ball and chain prison, but a prisoner of Love. If you're serving God because you are afraid you might go to hell you have the wrong revelation, although there is a literal hell. Regards,
DavidWell, the US has the greatest christian population country in the world and is 5% of the World's population.
US has greatest gun homicides in the industrial world, 25% of the worlds prisons and 50% of the world's war budget.
You want me to join this Sodom and Gomorrah gang. Sorry I gave up fighting and enemies at age 8.Marriage or having children dose not make us any more morral
Why is it that the only action is in the religion forums. Resigned...
Well you've got two groups of people who accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being on the other side. As an agnostic and a scientist, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. I've been called an atheist/Christian more times than I can remember. Maybe I should butt out and leave them too it. I've been here long enough to see these discussions don't go anywhere. I think I'll be joining you on the non-religious forums in future
Perhaps I should introduce my theory here...
Okay, it sounds a great idea to know your theory, but I have just checked your profile and I don't see any religious theory there, would you mind to let us know a bit more, specially about the flood in the days of Noah. Because I have written my own theory and I would like to compare it with your theory.
Bless your heart...
We are all lab rats.
ct92.
Welcome to the Hub Pages Forum
Don't what? any religious theory?
I've decided that this forum is effective, challenging, productive and exciting.. I enjoy reading!
Hello folks, Well just a week or two ago, I watched a video of a scientific team climbing Mount Ararat because the Ark (arc) of Noah is believed to have been found there. Well preserved in ice and snow. I do not think I am allowed to disclose here which hub I saw the video on; but it was fascinating. Our Lord God has His own timing when He chooses to disclose the truth of Scripture to the world. Many other discoveries of ancient times being made now. I wonder why!!
I suggest you check your facts. There are no biblical discoveries at all - only Liars For Jesus (TM) making YouTube videos for the gullible.
"believed to have been found there"
Was it found? Pieces brought back to verify it is gopher wood, 5,000 years old? Of the general size and shape of the ark? Or at least pieces big enough to indicate it might be?
I mean, if the video is just about a "scientific" team looking for a fable and never finding it I wouldn't be very interested. If they actually found something and did more with it than simply claim it was the ark without ever testing it could worth a watch.
And yes, you can post links to hubs, just not your own.
There was testing done on it from what I understood. Samples brought back. But apparently, the size fits. It was a few weeks ago that I saw it and I will go to the persons website (Christian) and make sure that they do not mind me giving out their web address to people who speak so very disrespectfully of Jesus as Mark Knowles does, before I make it public.
I do not usually come on these forums because of the rudeness and disrespect that is present here. It is like a wave of negativity and nastiness that hits one and unfortunately leaves its mark for a while.
I did not see it on Youtube, but perhaps you should do a search for it there???
I will come back with the address if they don't mind me giving it out.Please check your facts before posting such nonsense. Disrespectful of a mythical character - how is that possible?
You have your opinions Mark. You have obviously made a choice without too much deep research into the subject. I hope you have a mother or family who know Christ.
Please do not make such wrong assumptions about me. I pity you.
You have your opinions Mark. You have obviously made a choice without too much deep research into the subject. I hope you have a mother or family who know Christ.
Hmm her opinion was that you have not done too much deep research.. a valid opinion and i concur. IF she had have said ANY RESEARCH.....
Oh but then you have cornered the market on that statement haven't you....
Mark Knowlesposted 3 hours ago in reply to this
Clearly you have not bothered to do any research or fact checking. So, I guess we don't like to be lectured by people who have not done any research.
then possibly you might have a ledge to stand on, but she didn't and you don't have a ledge to stand on.
Pity her.....
She made a valid assessment and you pity her for that??!! aren't you the Elevated One.
handing out egos today are you?
Hi there! Degree in theology, here. I also reject Christ. Want to tell me I don't know anything either?
I have read your posts and you do not know anything important.
Okay, prove that we have a soul, define what that soul is, and how it separates us from all of the other animals.
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and MAN became a living soul. Soul is the human being, body and mind. H5315.. breathing creature, bodily, mental.
evolution isn't "just a theory" Sorry. It is scientific, it's tested, proven and peer reviewed, and they can observe it in a laboratory. What science have you been studying?
Go Here: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&tbo=d&a … mp;bih=588
Darwin had an evolution theory
are you confusing evolution with the origin of life?
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&tbo=d&a … mp;bih=588
Darwin had an origin of life theory.
.... The largest wooden boat in history that was able to float was nowhere near that size.
I could go on debunking your posts but i just hope you have learned something mr theologian.You arenot actually "debunking" anything. You realize that, right? Fortunately for me, the truth about me, my life and, I don't know, REALITY is not dependent on your opinion. And for the thousandth time I'M NOT A MR, DUDE
Sorry small icon... you are debunked.. face it.. although facing things is probably why a theologian as yourself has the stance you have. Also, my opinion was not stated. If theologically you had done the research on what a soul was (bible basic) you wouldn't have posted the question. Secondly google links cannot be construed as my opinion. Thirdly noahs ark.. entirely floatable.. again, not my opinion.
ms dudetteFirst of all, there is a big difference between a degree in theology and being a "theologian" especially since I started refluxing I was an atheist while still in Bible college. Secondly, google links aren't exactly considered reliable. Thirdly, I was referring to your opinion about me, not the topics which is a brilliant ad hominem which you seem to like to use when you run out of useful (or at least humorous) things to say. I can't actually have a conversation with someone who doesn't give a crap about polite discussions or respect and just wants to insult people they don't like.
JMcFarlandposted 4 hours ago in reply to this
Hi there! Degree in theology, here. I also reject Christ. Want to tell me I don't know anything either?
Perhaps you should have explained this seemingly "i know what i'm talking about so who wants to say i don't know anything" statement by stating that a degree in theology means next to nothing.
Google links that point to excellent sources of information are truly useful. But i respect your trying to wiggle out of that scenario just as you downplayed the "i have a degree in theology" statement.
The opinion i have about you.. now isnt that tricky.. your initial post i responded to begged an opinion.. nice trap.. but what you call opinion i can call assessment without harm or foul.
As to my ad hominem i use it to strike home important points. The hebraic/jewish people used to repeat things 3 times to do this, space is important and i don't want to be repetitive. Are reason and intellect addressed by my posts.. some not all and to that i say, i am not perfect.
What i really enjoy is that certain peoples thought they were just gonna go into the christian forum and bully and push around a lot of stupid christians. Well things just didn't work out that way for them. Instead their words are played back and boy do they look silly. Persuasive criteria for consideration is placed like dinner in front of them, even new doctrines dismissing old catholic pagantology is shown to them. Such fun!
I am curious though, never attending any christian education school, did they teach you about fallen angels? A living satan purveyor of an underworld of dead spirits?You know what's really fun? Seeing a bunch of Christians behave Christ like. Too bad none of that is happened here.
I don't give a damn if you believe anything I say about myself personally. In the grand scheme of things, your opinion of me is insignificant. You just like to try and get a reaction by any means necessary. Its called trolling. I was warned about you. Should have listened. I'm going back to ignoring you and discounting your posts now. Go ahead and "claim victory" - although as we've all seen, claiming something to be true has no basis on whether or not it actually is.So this is the blind eye you turn to everything that you don't like. You probably interpret the bible the same you interpret my posts. Stick to readers digest then and lalalal your way through, personally if i'd been debunked like you were/are i'd be leavin. You'd have to duct tape your forehead to that spot between your shoulder blades to keep your head up after that.
Nice that you say "as we have ALL seen" care to take a poll on that and see yet another debunking of what you call truth.
I don't set any store in theology. And you twisted my words. I did not say Mark did not know anything. Why are you all so nasty?
Clearly you have not bothered to do any research or fact checking. So, I guess we don't like to be lectured by people who have not done any research.
Deleted
Sorry Cousin, no research is apropos. Like yourself - she appears too lazy to do anything other than copy and paste nonsense.
I don't blame you - learning is hard.Your too quick to jump in.. seems like you got your finger on the button and with little thought or even an informative reply you enjoy voicing your own opinion. There's a word for that... you and castle should hang out more often, see if a fight breaks out
Two egos battling for supremacy, should be fun, Me, i'd just walk away.I agree with much of what Mark has to say and for most others also.
Bro, on the other hand, we have little to agree on because you lost in space and Holly bible landComing from you that's no big deal. I have proved you are lost somewhere.
Good luck with that.
Done any valid research lately?My reserch is not limited thinking which must all be validated by the Bible
That's a shame because in a christian forum and/or thread biblical insight is greatly valued while personal opinions based on personal ego is, well, not.
And just to mention another fo-pah; you won't find the bible validating your thinking. which is what most christians discover. The bible re-evaluates their thinking to meet the bible. Its the other way around, chamowr.I don't know of or can imagine a more exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities than Yahweh. There is No other group that I have ever experience that has more vainity, judgement of others, quilt, jeaiouly and over ego in this over ego world than Chriatians. The mystic of Jesus seems alright, except the wrong translations and behavior example by Christains.
Chriatians should quilt. What language is jeaiouly. Ya know if you took a bit of time....
Your God’s is name is Jealous, among so many other names
Ok, nobody is jealous of my writinglol.. why u did not bother to correct your spelling mistakes is only something i can assess as being really really hasty to type something. Which is probably indicative of the amount of time you actually spend researching to know if what you think is true.
So please stop wasting both our times.I wouldn't worry about your spelling Castle, BO here starts a sentence with a lower case 'w'; writes 'u' instead of 'you'; and doesn't capitalise his 'i'. Hello Pot, I'm Kettle, you're black.
Oh and his grammar is off a bit too.
The link is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_wIKiOgk10
They went to a lot of trouble to find it.. digging deep crevasses in solid ice. Wood deeply embedded in solid ice.. what looks like floor planking.. tapping makes a wooden sound. What is there to debunk?
Christ said:
Luke 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
It does not matter how much research one has done about this video mark, it is labelled noahs ark.. that is the theory.. and you do subscribe to theories don't you? These Chinese people went to a lot of trouble to make this as you call it...
"I suggest you check your facts. There are no biblical discoveries AT ALL - only Liars For Jesus (TM) making YouTube videos for the gullible."
..." just to lie for jesus". And speaking of lying for atheism.. nice of you to drop by even though there have been NO BIBLICAL DISCOVERIES AT ALL.. i suggest you broaden your mindset by going here:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&sugexp= … mp;bih=588
Clearly to say NO and AT ALL and even ANY RESEARCH is simply a lie. This is why people like you start wars and people like me find you easy to debunk.Yes - no biblical discoveries. None at all. There are plenty of liars who will say otherwise, but they have no basis in fact - or even theory. LAWL
I suggest doing some actual research instead of this, cousin.
No wonder your religion causes so many fights.
Those blind eyes of yours are pretty handy huh, but they make you appear silly, stubborn and irrational.. am i suppose to assume that in the 14minutes between our posts that you actually did go to the link? and do any reasearch or broaden your horizons?
This is why you cause so many fights.. you lead with ignorance and purposefully so. Its just protection eh mark. What you knowless of won't hurt.Sorry, cousin - I am familiar with most of the lies you posted. LAWL
familiar possibly; not familiar enough, actually I would say in the very least you know little about what you speak, wait i cant really say that because you only criticize and offer no information at all and truly you do say very little. So i can't be bothered to explain it lol.
BUT...
Just for the record because you believe we are descended from whales does not make you my cousin.. that is another lie you post, we are not even related in any way at all. Please stop lying to make yourself seem credible. If you must live in falsity keep my family tree away from it, in this you do purposely try to deceive others.
You consider questioning sometimes baseless statements to be nasty? wow.
I was not referring to your comment mcfarland. cant wait to get off here.
So - you were referring to my comment? What comment was nasty?
Ya get used to it.. and it becomes quite funny.. It shouldn't i suppose be funny but alas i am not acquainted with love on a human level and so Gods love evades me sometimes. Its a lesson i am learning.
All their responses are nasty.. its kinda like a fight or flee response.
Don't let it bother you, but make sure of every word you type because any loop hole or questionable word.. like 'prison' mentioned above will be jumped all over in spite of the quality of the post..kudos Pool of Thoughts and then you have to clarify again... and again... and again .. even clarifying can be called "moving the goal posts".
shalomWhen you say "why are you ALL so nasty", it includes everybody's comments.
Do you know what theology is?The study of theories. Do you know what theories are.
check your dictionaryI know what theories are, and that in the realm of science they trump laws and hypothesis are way at the bottom - a fact that you seem completely unable to grasp.
1)a system of rules, procedures, and ASSUMPTIONS used to produce a result
2)abstract knowledge or reasoning
3)a speculative or conjectural view or idea ⇒ "I have a theory about that"
4)an ideal or hypothetical situation (esp in the phrase in theory)
5)a set of hypotheses related by logical or mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms ⇒ "the theory of relativity"
I suggest you find out what 'trumps' means.Very good! You can read a dictionary. Now look up the SCIENTIFIC definition of the word theory.
Been there done that
THEORY
A scientific theory summarizes a HYPOTHESIS or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
HYPOTHESIS
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
So since "A scientific theory summarizes a HYPOTHESIS" as mentioned above under theory.. we are back to square one, which is as i said... to summarize.. not a fact.
apparently i can read both Its just quicker and an easier read to go to the normal dictionary which says the same thing.
And i would just like to add this from scientific.com
LAW
A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.
Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.
As you can see, there is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science. I work under the definition that to prove something implies it can never be wrong, which is different. If you're asked to define hypothesis, theory, and law, keep in mind the definitions of proof and of these words can vary slightly depending on the scientific discipline. (the measurement of light for example {my addition}). What is important is to realize they don't all mean the same thing and cannot be used interchangeably.according to this, I may be misusing some of my words. ie, explain vs describe: note that I am not attempting to split the atom with my use of English. but point being EVERYTHING is held together by elmers glue. unless you believe in super-glue. ( which has only worked once for me sucessfully in my entire life. ) We are are peons as it were, royal paupers at best standing at the gates of opportunity, imagination, and yet held in check by laws of reality, unless something supernatural occurs. Principles of existence overtake and overwhelm most of us. Can scientists possibly ever become visionaries? John Glen? Armstrong? Christa McAulife? (her faith took her into the future, with obvious faith both in God and in science, believing something else was out there.) I beleive there is a future. it starts with today. Faith keeps looking. Hope says yes. Fear is the enemy. But fear can be be channeled. Faith also transforms fear into energy: At least man's fear of failure. faith says to failure, "you have not won" . That is the factor man cannot change.
"NOAH" son of Lamech. Traceable by all Jewish, and all Arab cultures. Traceable by India and China and Indonesian cultures.
Though you were to argue against the existence of Jesus Christ or of Noah, or of Adam, you would be in the minority. hundreds, thousands and millions have already established thier existence both by Historical writers, ancient manuscripts, national geneologies, and not the least by the Word Of God. You have not and never will disprove his existence. and for the believer, " the word of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his,"
You claim the ten commandments have nothing to do with our laws today, but yes they do. they are the origin/basis of our moral laws today. and they are tracable back to the day of MOSES, whom if you were able to brainwash the world about Noahs existence, you still wold have Moses ( and the Law, given by GOD staring you in the face. Go ahead. trace the origin of the use of the ten commandments.. see for yourself. you will find it came from tablets of stone. written on a mountaintop, called Mt.Sinai. It has weathered all opposition. It is still what it is.. I sincerely offer the agnostics and the atheists, that this IS our test of the existance of God and his word. That it has and forever will pass against the test of time. It will endure. and the more you push against it the MORE it will grow. it speaks of a living God, and spirit that can and will speak to you during the night. during the day. He will make the prophecies contained in the book come true. He has already done it. for instance. the works of the law and the prophecies of Isaiah, the books of the judges and the psalms were already sitting in the librarys of yesterday.. the Prophecy of Jesus and of the crucificion was already penned and prophecied 2000 years prior to the actual event. When It happened it substantiated its author. when it ocurred it substantiated its subject. when it was said and done, the Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. As the scripture says many times, let him that ears to hear, let him hear: Jesus came to write his laws on and within the human heart. that was his mission. to offer himself as the last and final sacrifice for the atonement against the condemnation placed upon us through sin.. Let me ask you , which of you would NOT want that? which of you would rail against a messiah that came to offer hope of Salvation from the curse of sin and death?
The weight of the Law sat on the offender. it sits still on the offender today. the Human courts only offer resititution for the offended and punishment for the offender. Gods law offers forgiveness of the offense, and takes the weight of the law away from the perpetrator; Which of you would dare to propose that if there is a natural offense made in the fleshly status/ body, that there is NOT a spiritual offense made against the heart, against the creation, and against God? which of you would say that man is so shallow of his existence that what he does isn't significant? That man has no spiritual accountability against time, eternity and against God? The reality is that IF you are an atheist and choose NOT to believe, then you are still subject to who created you. If its nature, without a "mind" then perhaps you are ok, but if even nature has a mind, then you are still accountable.
But If God created you, then you are accountable for the things you have both heard about the creator, about the law, and you will not escape the penalty of the law unless you accept the atonement made by the greatest event of History, namely Jesus and his crucificion and his resurrection, for the purpose of atonement of the death penalty for sin. Yes, Christianity asserts both a natural death and a spiritual death. Christianity merely asserts for the christian a natural death and eternal place of life/Heaven, vs for the unbeliever/sinner natural death and eternal living of death. sheol, place of death and eternal fire. Who here would NOT want to accept the gift of life, and want to escape eternal death and its terrors?
Finally, even if you live your life in denial, and you choose the road to believe eternity is a void and no accountability. and say that this belief takes you through life. when you die, when you end your journey here on the earth, and you go to sleep in your last breath, and expect darkeness, nothing, void. --------- what IF you are surprised? what if instead you still have to face HIM? what will you do then?
Make no mistake, its not my job, or anyones job to judge the other.. but still we have a day that we will be accountable. Is that what you are afraid of? why you debate? why you refuse the way? for surely if this Jesus, this Noah and this Adam have any credibility at all, which I believe they do, ( even if you only had the ten commandments to go by!) they would only speak to us to show us how to return to life, love and to avoid eternal death through the blood of Jesus Christ.
otherwise, when you debate this subject, and you blindly deny the law, the judges, the prophets, the prophecies, the manuscripts, the geneologies, the archeological evidence, the very fact that many claims of the bible are proven true.. ( just one of them. the scripture says the world/space has no end) suggests their IS a GOd, bigger and greater than any one of us could ever imagine. bigger than any mountain. bigger than any problem. bigger than any opposition to his existence.
Man has difficulty accepting that he can be effected, and changed by the supernatural. Make no mistake. the bible does say that the natural things are at enmity (against) spiritual things. Just as the opposite of a magnet is the magnet itself. one side draws and one side pushes away. in human terms., a contrary spirit is
one that says No, when the other says yes. That is against even what is good for them. for example, someone who hates spinach is against the very thing that is good for them. If you hate God, are you not doing the same thing? I know what I'm talking about, I'm a man. But to refuse Christianity because you find a single fault? are you not looking for a reason? Do you refuse to drive your automobile because its not the safest vehicle ever made? you still drive it don't you! Gods word declares "try me and see if I'm not good to you!"You get that the majority of what you call the "ten commandments" existed in other cultures way before "Moses" ever went up on that mountain, right?
was it not made clear? they existed but at that moment they were "put in stone" for the human scientists to study. Here is the proof you are looking for JM. God even did that for you. You have from the beginning asked for "proof" . Now its time for you to prove if you are sincere or not.
Human scientists can study the stones? Great. Where are they? Which set? I'd be more interested in the set god write on himself, but Moses lost his temper, destroyed them and had to go back for seconds.
An old man that was losing his hold on the people climbed a little ways up a mountain, picked up some pre-made chiselings he'd done the month before and told everybody God made them especially for him?
That's your proof of God?Oscar, Do you believe that a magic man created the universe and lives in an alternate dimension called Heaven? Further, do you really believe that all of us people will live FOREVER in either endless joy or suffering depending or which God, or lack there of we believe in? One more, why did God purposly give the majority of people the wrong religion, just to burn them in hell forever ? These concepts are simply impossible. God is not real, people are.
Hi Oscalites! What you have written is a very good speech. But somehow you have to realize that what you have said it is all according to the past, and what is written in the bible, the bible has been written after the events took place and not before, most of the bible has been written from stories that have been passed from generation to generation through word of mouth, and then adjusted to fit the purposes of whatever the writer wanted to highlight, therefore a lot of the bible does not fulfill what humanity needs today. And this is the real question that religions are facing today, the whole religious setup needs to be modified so to speak. It should be modified in a way that can connect with what is known today.
Having said that, I am not trying to convince you to change your beliefs, but just think that these changes are going to take place, because the world needs them.
Sere you Frankfrank.. dear sir.. thank you for the respect that you have for others. in answer all i can honestly say is that if you (or anyone ) rewrote the book of life, or the law, I would be afraid for our world. at best you would only start a new debate and you and I both know that the new world order will only be brought in by force. it will only be by despot governments trying to reenact primitive domination instincts through use of more more modern "humanistic" socialisms. Control and worldwide compliance to this new world order merely imitates the Constantine principles. Do you really want that?
what you just explained is equal to a littel girl walking into your village, and her saying I want my mommy.. I know who my mommy is! and you in the kindness, or judgement you feel is best for her; is to say to her. NO! You have no mommy, We are your mommy now! Live with us and our new rules.. - instead of taking her back to her mommy. You know she has a mommy but yet you take her away from her, through domination, through your lack of knowledge of who her mommy is! BUT if her mommy suddenly "shows up", whoa.. now you have a different belief. Our God has and will show up. He's what the world really needs. He said he will return , Frank. Man IS full of doubt, and and times HAVE changed, but there are those who will never doubt God and who he is.Dear Oscarlites; If you had given me the benefit of doubt and the possibility that perhaps one day religious things could change I could have believed you, but you insist that everything is exactly as some of us believe the Bible says, because we have been told what the bible means from somebody else. For me the Bible can mean many things, it is very controversial and open to interpretations.
Anyhow I have never said that there is no God, all I am trying to say in my religious writings is that God might be a bit different to what we have been told; with this in mind I continue to write down the reasons and the possibilities of how God could be, or if you want how God would be more acceptable from all communities.
Whether God is going to show up in a way or another we need to wait and see, because so far nothing has really happened to say that God as you see Him exists.
Stories passed down from generation to generation. This is not the chinese whisper game. All jewish people are versed in torah from that day of moses forward. The oral practice was to speak the torah loud and clear and those listening would be the judges of what was said. If there was a mistake the audience tempered it and corrected it and what was preserved orally was accurate.
There are mentions in the bible of books in moses Pentateuch. The egyptians wrote. The 10 commandments were written twice.
Just because of age does not mean fallibility, or we can discount everything from what period of time do you suggest?it also doesnt mean consistency or truth. oral legends are notoriously error prone, and the EVIDENCE is in the variations in bible texts that we have from CE 200 and onward
and yes, we should be skeptical of ANY time period, and more so when someone claims they have a lock on the truth [aka word of god]But you are wrong. Oral legends are notoriously error corrective and corrected every time they are spoken. Its like that story that mom told ya over and over and then to your little brother as you listened on you would say.. now mom you know red riding hood had a red cape. You also do not take into account that the people led their lives by torah. Torah was sacred and holy... sacred and holy... well, lets ignore that and just say they were like any other story... we can't ignore that. Who are the best documentors of the holocaust - the jews of course, and who would have been more inclined to alter truths? The jewish people of course, but their information was corroborated and found to be factual - a practice from the beginning of time.
When you talk of a period CE200 and upward you bring into the arena a new area of discussion not pertaining to the oral law. You also havent read my prior post about the 'variations' in the texts and how they are counted and how little impact these variations have. Please locate and do so.
The problem with the word truth is that today truth is personal, everyone has their own 'truth' and that 'truth' is valid. But Jesus spoke of another truth, a truth that is not politically correct, watered down or personal. He spoke about the truth of God which is the same yesterday today and forever. Unwavering. IF anyone lock onto that truth then truth is what is spoken.
When it comes to God how can we be skeptical of ANY time period. I should imagine that a creator of everything including human beings would be with people from the beginning, which was a shorter time back then than now but still, God should come to his people, or form a nation unto himself from the beginning. That to me seems quite persuasive. And then God should be able to minister to his people through some means of communication from the beginning. So no i don't think time should be considered as a negative in anything that God is doing today. Jesus said how hard for a rich man to enter... and out of the mouth of babes... blessed are the meek and poor of spirit... and now let me paraphrase... blessed are the goat herders who were once slaves to egypt.
every set of ten commandments ever written, man sought to destroy. even the set in the supreme court chambers. "man shall not live by bread alone , but by every word that cometh from God." I for one would Not want to live in a society that was void of the Law, but most especially that was void of the power of the Love of God. sorry. man is finite. God is infinite. Gods love and his wisdom reaches into infinity. man has only traveled a little tiny distance. He will never make it there on his own. Would you want to live in a Godless society? really?
"Would you want to live in a Godless society?"
We already do, even though some delude themselves into believing otherwise. Not so bad after all, is it?*shrug* Would you rather lay around all day in a paradise with no problems and nothing to do or have a few problems to exercise your abilities now and them?
Nobody likes a life of grief, but no one that's honest wants a life of boring paradise, either.Wilderness.. I could see you there with Moses.
You betcha! I can work with a mallet and chisel. Even wrote a hub on carving letters into stone, come to think of it!
the Bible speaks of many laws.. the law of the harvest, the law of sowing and reaping..
it states natural laws and it states spiritual laws. laws are pertinent to life. - physics also have laws. all that man has done is learn their actions and define those laws to us and given those laws names.
the point is.. those laws already existed. whether they are physics, whether they be spiritual, or whether they are moral, human cause and effect laws. The Bible as Gods word describes how those already existent laws effect us, much the same as scientific rules describe how we are effected.
the christian can show results of using Gods laws. the scientist can show results of using science.
is it even a goal of science to take over the position that God claims? that science itself created? I am confused, because science is only observation ( relative to what I'm speaking of here.) I'm starting to see that it is something else than science that wants science to be our God. that science made us, not God.
so that is not a big deal either. If you want evolution, you have to accept that you are insignificant. that you are merely a random occcurence. that you have no individual purpose. that there is no need for you to excel, or be an acheiver. there is no place for you to go either, unless you evolve into a higher being, but wait! you don;t believe in a higher being, so thats no good. so maybe you evolve back to a muscular stone age man, nope! thats too random. evolution appears only to create order not chaos. ( at least thats what we hope for).. but wait! hope has no power to the scientist.. it either is or it isn't! then why do you get so excited when you discover? when you create? when you succeed? The truth is that a real scientist is NOT necessarily ( far from it) evolutionist godless atheist. thats just what some would want to believe. PEER pressure has made many go to work and leave their belief's outside. that's sad. We are individuals. that also is proof of intelligent design. We have the basic right to believe. or not to believe.Like many stories over time, they get exaggerated beyond what they originally were, so in actual fact it would be more realistic to assume that Noah was actually called Yesah and his Ark was a remote controlled boat that he was playing with at the time he peed himself and flooded the top deck of his toy boat. A little Ladybird called Luna and a tiny Spider called Alex ran quickly on to the boat to save themselves from drowning in piss and thus the story was born.....and Jesus also shat himself!
Stories yes, since there is some flippancy about them but holy scriptures notta chance. There is far to much explicit detail when we look at the dimensions of Noahs boat to be mere exaggeration, especially from a period in time and a place in time when boats this big were, not to exaggerate, uncommon, in the desert of all places. This is like saying build a 747 in Times Square.
The detail of the wilderness tabernacle would have been useless had it been exaggerated one tiny bit.
You really have to admit that reading the bible without bias shows a somber, exacting recital of truth, a fervor for detail. Genealogies that have been scorned and lauded as untrue, included in a book of exaggerations? which i have shown correctness about in a hub or two.
The problem with what people think is that, often that thought is grounded in nothing but themselves they will always come up with some self serving philosophy that proclaims exactly what they think, again the bible is nothing like this. The laws - not exaggerated. Festival ceremonies - not exaggerated. Losses in war - not exaggerated - embarassing criteria that one would think would be changed or omitted.
We can look at david and goliath and say exaggeration but i doubt it. We can look at Gideons fleece also, now many people can relate bits of both of these accounts? perhaps 50%, or more for some, others who have studied them are spot on accurate and this is the point to non-exaggeration and oral tradition, when we have people unversed in these reports yet able to recant much of it how much more so those who treated them as holy scriptures purported by a holy God whom they totally knew by age 15 by daily reading.
Jesus may well have shat himself, but only when he was a baby. Amazing that God would come to earth and partake of humanness as we do, grow as we do and die much more severely than most of us do.
Related Discussions
- 23
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the
by peterxdunn 11 years ago
Does this image prove - beyond all doubt - that God does not exist and that the Bible story...cannot be true?Look very carefully at this picture. It was taken by the Hubble Space Telescope (a true miracle of the modern age). The light from some of the galaxies shown here has been travelling through...
- 73
Noah and the Flood - What REALLY Happened
by Dan Harmon 2 years ago
I've always been intrigued with the biblical story of Noah and the ark, so I thought I would examine what might have happened at that time.First of all, some assumptions were necessary. In the immortal words of Bill Cosby "I'm going to make it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and drown 'em...
- 39
A conversation that has me Stumped
by Stump Parrish 14 years ago
A good friend of mine and i were recently discussing history and the conversation turn to the age of the planet. My friend explained that he had watched a documentory that proved the earth was only 6000 years old and I laughed until I saw he was serious. I asked him how he explained the results of...
- 18
How did sin enter back into the world, seeing that God had purged it of evil by
by Kimberly J 11 years ago
How did sin enter back into the world, seeing that God had purged it of evil by sending the flood?
- 261
Is it Noah and the Flood or the Epic of Noahmesh?
by Paul Wingert 11 years ago
How many people believe that Noah and the flood was a true, historical event? The Torah and Bible says the God instructs Noah to build an ark that measures 300 cubits by 50 cubits x 30 cubits high. First of all let's do the math. The ancient Sumerian cubit as about 518.6 mm or 20.42 in. The Ancient...
- 37
Tell me a Noah Ark story like a comedian. Lol
by Castlepaloma 6 years ago
I laugh at all Noah Ark storiesof. LOL Creationist have Noah Ark and Creationism museums. Plus plans to educate children in all US schools. Two views conflicting evolutionary humanism vs. Creatiism according to Genesis. Earth and all of its life form were created 6000 years ago in over...