Proof that the Bible was not written by mankind!

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Oh yes, and proving the bible, by breaking the rules of God (divination naughty)

Good catch.
Deuteronomy 18:10
10 There shall not be found among you anyone xwho burns his son or his daughter as an offering,5 anyone who ypractices divination or ztells fortunes or interprets omens, or aa sorcerer

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Evidently you believe that YOU are uniquely positioned and uniquely brilliant to

JUDGE negatively

that

1. The Committee and university that granted Dr Missler his PhD were idiots.
2. The Naval Academy was stupid in graduating him.
3. Those who advanced him in rank were clueless.
4. Those who gave him critical military and corporate jobs were lobotomized.
5. Those who paid him good paychecks for his mathematically intense INFORMATION SCIENCE skills and knowledge wasted their money.

Seems to me your allegation is a total logical fail on the face of it.

Talk about a strawman. I never put forward any of those ideas.

PS: I don't feel like responding to the rest of your posts since none of them had any content. Just angry dismissals of my words. Get back to me when you actually plan on countering my posts with some substance.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The collection we call the Bible was written by a number of men, the Bible itself attests to that, but the OP shows that these individual men were just the writing instruments. The mind revealed to be ultimately behind the Bible, exceeds even exceptional human capability.

So, if a mind greater than any human mind directed the writing of the Bible, the set of possible authors is small. Why not then attribute it to the ultimate mind - God (as revealed in the Bible)? I can think of no other apt candidate.

But the OP doesn't show that the individuals who authored the books in the Bible were just writing instruments. Let's pretend for a minute though, that they were. Who or whatever was ultimately behind the Bible, is a horrible author! Especially for being "the ultimate mind". What with all the inconsistencies, contradictions etc.

Hey here is some "proof" humans didn't write the Quran either!

The Quran code is a proposed mathematical structure within the text of the Quran, mostly using the number 19 as a common denominator. The study and results from this cipher have been popularized by the book The Quran: Final Testament by Rashad Khalifa.[1] The code is so vast, intricate, and complex that proponents say it shows that the Quran was not written by humans.[2] Because of this, those who believe the code actually exists refer to it as the Mathematical Miracle of the Quran.

In 1968, Egyptian biochemist Rashad Khalifa began his translation of the Quran because he was not satisfied with any of the other translations at the time. He vowed to never move past a verse without understanding it. After completing chapter 1 within a week, He arrived at chapter 2:1 with the letters Alif-Lâm-Mîm. His lack of understanding of this verse caused him to statistically analyze the Quran with a computer. Over the course of several years this continued until January 1974 when he claimed he had discovered an intricate mathematical pattern when he placed the original Arabic text of the Quran into a computer. The intricate pattern was found to be divisible by a common denominator of the number 19, hence "code-19" is sometimes used to popularly describe Khalifa's work or the community of Qur'an alone Muslims who go by the name of the Submitters.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Must we count everything? Perhaps he's an arithmomaniac.

Look hard enough and you'll find repeating numbers all around.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: chr0naut

So seven repeats itself? There are 10 digits to choose from. One of them is bound to show up rather often. It's inevitable. And you can't dodge the fact that your math only works in base 10.

... and Physics isn't as rigourously consistent as you say. Depending upon scale, we have to use different equations entirely to describe the quantum realm.

That has nothing to do with changing the base of the numbers in the calculations.

I think a good place to start would be what base was used in mathematics at the time, rather than just denying everything you have read because thats your opionion.

I on the other hand don't know whether to believe it or not. I am not a religious person but I cannot deny that there are things which I cannot explain. I have no proof either way and so I choose not to go down the route of out and out denial of any one way of thinking or theory.

I would start by looking at the proposed century or decade that each Gospel/Story/BS (whatever you prefer) was written or supposedly written and then look at what Base was used when counting. If it is Base 10 for all, then in my opinion, your suggestion that by changing the base means they don't work out... is because they used Base 10 (possibly) and of course no other Base will create the same pattern.

Have a look at this link on Wiki which provides further links and information to the types of Bases used by different cultures throughout History. We may be able to derive dates of when Base 10 was started to be used commonly amongst the writers of the Gospels/Stories/BS.

en.wikipedia.org...

I for one was confused just reading it but I understand the general principle of Base numbers (in other words the numerics which are unique and are not repeated such as 0 to 9, as once you get to 10 you are then using a combination of 1 and 0 which means the number 10 is not unique and so on)

To say that physics always works out the same regardless of Base i think is a very big statement to make unless you are a Physicist yourself (which you may be)

a reply to: GgtthMike

But your reasoning presupposes that the Bible WAS written by man. Why would a god that is supposedly writing this thing be limited to the base used by the culture? Wouldn't this god want to make it so that it works with any base?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Klassified

a reply to: chr0naut

and threads on ATS are NOT full of errors, contradictions and pseudo-history?

Plenty. It's up to the reader to research the information.

We don't really have many archaeological finds relating to Abraham and the Exodus. Many once said that there was none, but as time has passed, supporting archaeology has come to light.

What we do have points to myths, legends, and an embellished history.

A single scroll was not allowed to be touched by human hands and special implements were made to assist in reading the scrolls. This gave each scroll a usable life of 800 years. The transcription process of creating copies of the master scrolls were also highly systematic and accurate. Books of tables were kept that showed word and letter counts. Also, positional placings of significant letters and words are included. The result is that we can be assured that the Hebrew scrolls did not change significantly over time. The most ancient copies of the manuscripts that we have are in extremely close agreement with the more modern Hebrew translations (i.e: the Masoretic), showing that the copying and verification processes did actually work and gives confidence that the sources for the Bible have not changed significantly over time.

The same care and discipline could have gone into preserving any ancient text. That doesn't mean the preserved text is truthful or an accurate account.

As for "miracles that never happened", where is the proof for that statement?

Where is the proof for the biblical miracles? If you think the bible is proof, then Homer was no doubt telling the truth about the Cyclops and Sirens. Yet neither the biblical miracles, nor Homer's imagination have any evidence for their existence but a book that says those things happened. The onus is on those who say they did.

There also is no hard evidence for the big bang singularity or universal inflation. We take them on faith because we can see theoretical links to stuff we can measure (like the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation).



Some things we have to use our brains and our hearts to decide.



I know that the Jesus described in the Bible has changed me. I know this, not just from the Bible, but also I can see evidence in myself and others who are changed too. I have a new morality advising me not to do wrong things even if those things don't affect anyone else. I have an ethical sense that goes beyond what I personally want and can reason.



I also have had several experiences of the presence of God's Spirit. Something separate from me that has the power to overwhelm me, but rarely does. Something that cares and loves, and in those times all of nature seems to be praising and attesting to.



In those times when I have sensed the Presence of the Holy Spirit, I have been witness to things that are miraculous. I have seen rain absolutely bucket down from a clear starry sky and put out a house fire. I have seen numerous healings. A friend who's back was broken in a car accident and who had no feeling in his body below the mid chest (I watched the doctor stick a sharp of a rather large syringe into him up and down his body to establish that there was no feeling) is now walking with zero signs that he had been injured. My own son who last year had Ewings Sarcoma and was told he would likely die because the cancer was aggressive, large and he was too old for a good prognosis, is now cancer free. Other, younger sufferers that he had gotten to know and who had much better prognoses, have, sadly, since passed.



That same Holy Spirit that I feel also motivates me to read and re-read the Bible, and also tells me that it is the word of God. Every time I read it, it speaks to me differently in ways that I hardly ever expect and yet is specific to my circumstances (especially the words of Jesus, which have so many levels of meaning). Why would I otherwise be motivated to re-read some dusty old book I have already read?



So my take on the OP is that this is yet another indicator of something beyond physics and humanity.

What about all the suffering and inhumane acts carried out in the name of religions who all attest to the same thing pretty much, which is that some higher force or power is essentially ruling us and we must obey their commands or be judged.

Does that mean that all the children who die around the world have committed some henious act against humanity.

I am not saying that God (whichever form you choose to think he is/believe he is) doesn't exist but there is so much inconsistency in what people preach vs what actually happens around the world every day. Miracles seem to happen very seldomly in comparison to tragedy.

Even if the Numerics are correct, I don't really see how that is evidence that it was written by a higher power, Mathematics were around for a long time before the Bible (both old and new) or Qu'ran was written

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GgtthMike



But your reasoning presupposes that the Bible WAS written by man. Why would a god that is supposedly writing this thing be limited to the base used by the culture? Wouldn't this god want to make it so that it works with any base?

I am not specifically pre-supposing anything, I am merely showing where you can start to investigate. I never at any point said you were wrong but suppositioned that if the texts were written using Base 10, then that is the reason they work out that way. If they weren't then the opposite is true.

In terms of who wrote the Bible, I don't actually know but as I am not religious and prefer to look at things from a scientific point of view, I have written my post in that way. Again if it was written by a higher power, then I am not disagreeing with you. Another way you could look at that would be to say what if God intended mathematics used by all human cultures to be in Base 10 (again im just proposing here not actually arguing)

a reply to: GgtthMike

Well keep in mind that the OP's conclusion is that man didn't write the bible and is using these "calculations" to try to prove it so.

a reply to: the2ofusr1
Thank you for the seal of God PDF. I always wanted to read that.

I always pick up new stuff from your input.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: GgtthMike



Well keep in mind that the OP's conclusion is that man didn't write the bible and is using these "calculations" to try to prove it so.

I am and if you read my previous post you will see that I am counter arguing both points of view as I am undecided and there are counter arguments for both.

I just enjoy the debate.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

The problem with the 'walk with man in paradise' business is that God is supposed to be omnipotent and as defined could walk with man any time he chooses. So his plan is to watch his creation go off the rails and sit on the sidelines while we inflict all sorts of evil on one another? Then the punchline at the end is to come back and punish those who have doubt after we we're born into these conditions?

Swell guy this God is...

It will take much more than numberology to convince me and I consider numberology right up there with astrology. May as well bring back I Ching to plan my days.

There are many gods and religions to choose from in this world and for me choosing a God that has such crappy plan making skills puts this particular God low on the totem pole in my experience of reality.

a reply to: GgtthMike

I think it is pretty clear that the Bible was written by man, most of the stuff is made up stories, and the "calculations" in the OP are just a case of confirmation bias.

I suppose another side to look at this from is only that the OP suggests the Bible was not written by man and can provide proof. Maybe he meant it was written by Aliens (is God an Alien).

Was God a scientist who created the big bang in his lab and the universe as we know it is the results of his experiments. In theory there is nothing to say that would not be correct when you take things down to the quantum level.

I found something really interesting when I saw a picture of the Neural Synapsis in the Brain and then a picture of the known universe (of course it is computer modelling and I am not 100% sure how accurate the pictures are) but they look remarkably similar. Who's to say our universe is not a Brain and all the stars and planets are indiviual synapsis etc, species are possibly at the smaller molecular level. (A bit wild in theory but hey why not).

I am searching for this picture as we speak.

originally posted by: GgtthMike
I suppose another side to look at this from is only that the OP suggests the Bible was not written by man and can provide proof. Maybe he meant it was written by Aliens (is God an Alien).

Well regardless of how god is defined, he IS an alien, but I see what you are saying. I really doubt this is the case too. The text doesn't align properly to account for the AA theory being true.

Was God a scientist who created the big bang in his lab and the universe as we know it is the results of his experiments. In theory there is nothing to say that would not be correct when you take things down to the quantum level.

Probably not since the big bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. It's just the beginning of time and space

I found something really interesting when I saw a picture of the Neural Synapsis in the Brain and then a picture of the known universe (of course it is computer modelling and I am not 100% sure how accurate the pictures are) but they look remarkably similar. Who's to say our universe is not a Brain and all the stars and planets are indiviual synapsis etc, species are possibly at the smaller molecular level. (A bit wild in theory but hey why not).

I am searching for this picture as we speak.

There are many patterns that repeat in nature. Evolution is another pattern that shows up in many different instances, however just because a pattern repeats doesn't mean that those things are the same thing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GgtthMike

I suppose another side to look at this from is only that the OP suggests the Bible was not written by man and can provide proof. Maybe he meant it was written by Aliens (is God an Alien).

Well regardless of how god is defined, he IS an alien, but I see what you are saying. I really doubt this is the case too. The text doesn't align properly to account for the AA theory being true.

Was God a scientist who created the big bang in his lab and the universe as we know it is the results of his experiments. In theory there is nothing to say that would not be correct when you take things down to the quantum level.

Probably not since the big bang wasn't the beginning of the universe. It's just the beginning of time and space

I found something really interesting when I saw a picture of the Neural Synapsis in the Brain and then a picture of the known universe (of course it is computer modelling and I am not 100% sure how accurate the pictures are) but they look remarkably similar. Who's to say our universe is not a Brain and all the stars and planets are indiviual synapsis etc, species are possibly at the smaller molecular level. (A bit wild in theory but hey why not).



I am searching for this picture as we speak.

There are many patterns that repeat in nature. Evolution is another pattern that shows up in many different instances, however just because a pattern repeats doesn't mean that those things are the same thing.

I agree, I don't actually think it is the same, I was just proposing possible other meanings for the title of the thread.

In terms of the Scientist creation theory, I am unfortunately not well enough versed in physics to say but what I meant was the start of time as we know it to be and the "Big Bang" was merely the result of an experiment.

The Brain one was just because the pictures were remarkably similar and I thought it was very interesting.

Of course I now cannot find them so I will say no more about that one

originally posted by: GgtthMike
I agree, I don't actually think it is the same, I was just proposing possible other meanings for the title of the thread.

True. There are plenty of possibilities for reality.

In terms of the Scientist creation theory, I am unfortunately not well enough versed in physics to say but what I meant was the start of time as we know it to be and the "Big Bang" was merely the result of an experiment.

It's not inconceivable. Especially since with the creation of games like Second Life, we are seriously close to doing the same thing.

The Brain one was just because the pictures were remarkably similar and I thought it was very interesting.

Of course I now cannot find them so I will say no more about that one

It's fine. I'm aware of the similarities. As well as the similarities to other things in the universe. It is interesting how often the macro can look like the micro. But like I said, that is all a result of natural processes that end up working out like that. After all, a small mound of dirt and a mountain of dirt are still piles of dirt at the end of the day.

PS: Sorry about the mad emoticon in the previous post. That was a slip of the mouse and I didn't notice it until I read your response to me and saw it at the bottom of the quote. I'm not actually mad at you though.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: GgtthMike

I agree, I don't actually think it is the same, I was just proposing possible other meanings for the title of the thread.

True. There are plenty of possibilities for reality.

In terms of the Scientist creation theory, I am unfortunately not well enough versed in physics to say but what I meant was the start of time as we know it to be and the "Big Bang" was merely the result of an experiment.

It's not inconceivable. Especially since with the creation of games like Second Life, we are seriously close to doing the same thing.

The Brain one was just because the pictures were remarkably similar and I thought it was very interesting.



Of course I now cannot find them so I will say no more about that one

It's fine. I'm aware of the similarities. As well as the similarities to other things in the universe. It is interesting how often the macro can look like the micro. But like I said, that is all a result of natural processes that end up working out like that. After all, a small mound of dirt and a mountain of dirt are still piles of dirt at the end of the day.



PS: Sorry about the mad emoticon in the previous post. That was a slip of the mouse and I didn't notice it until I read your response to me and saw it at the bottom of the quote. I'm not actually mad at you though.

No problem at all, although I did wonder why you were mad but then I try not to judge (of course that doesn't always work)

Yeah you are so right about the micro and the macro, it is repeated everywhere and I find it fascinating.

I am pretty new to this site but I love most of the topics, even the stranger ones.

a reply to: GgtthMike

Science, natural science that is, fascinates me. There is so much out there to be discovered and look at. It's a wonder why people are so wrapped up in believing easily disproved mythology when science shows that reality is SOOO much cooler than those stories.