Jesus the deceiver? Satan the true prophet?

John the Baptist was the prophet. Jesus didn't lift a finger to stop his cousin from being beheaded because he needed his teachings and his followers. Jesus was the one preaching revolution. John taught the value of kindness in a hostile world.

a reply to: WarriorOfLight96

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.

Actually the correct translation was not translated directly from biblical Hebrew to English. When Jerome translated his work to Latin, he used Hebrew MSS and in doing so could not understand Heylel son of the howling morning. Jerome then consulted the Hebrew scholars who also could not understand what son of the howling morning meant. Now Jerome interpreted this in his own understanding such as all translators do the same and replaced what he could not understand with what he could understand. Lucifer is not a translation or a transliteration of the Hebrew, but is a name created by Jerome to express that of which he could not understand.

Here is the Hebrew to English of Isaiah 14:12-15

Eth Cepher – YESHA’ YAHU – Isaiah Isa 14:12-15
(12) How art you fallen from heaven, O Heylel, son of the howling morning! How are you cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (13) For you have said in your heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of El.: I will sit also upon the mount of the assembly, in the sides of the north: (14) I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like El.Elyon. (15) Yet you shall be brought down to She’ol, to the sides of the pit.

All spirits that are against the Most High El are Satan's. We have been taught that the chief if the fallen angels was called Lucifer but that is alright in the sense that we have come to understand that there at least something for us to understand. Actually the angels who warred with God and were cast to this earth were and are still imprisoned according to NT. The Satan's that we are now dealing with are those spirits of the Enochian literature and not those of the war in heaven.

a reply to: Seede

What you believe is Darwinism and that is theory at best. It is called theology.

You are dead wrong!

In science there is speculation -> working hypothesis -> theory. Theory is the highest form of explanation supported by reviewed and repeatable tests with the same results. Not truth, not law. If you seek truth, as you said, theology is your ticket. So, there is a measure of uncertainty in scientific theory, till such time someone comes along and demonstrates a long held theory to be untenable.

In regular speech, there is theory and practice or academic and applied sciences if you will.

As you can see there is a world of difference, and you neither serve yourself or others by mixing these concepts up. (Hmmm.... may be there is something to that story of confusion of languages. His disciples seem to mimic it.)

Further, your lack of knowledge also shows by equating Darwinism with theology. I am not sure by what you mean with Darwinism. Care to elaborate?
Evolution by natural selection, as written down by Darwin after years of investigation and observation in his book: On the origin of species, explains how diversity in lifeforms came about though the forces of nature over time. It contains no theoretic framework that applies to how life itself came about.


From a non theistic point of view, looking at the history of gods and the words of gods (theology) one might be tempted to apply the mechanism of evolution to these fields of knowledge and pseudo scientific knowledge respectively.

a reply to: Seede

I agree with you that when someone makes a discovery, it should be about the discovery and how that discovery fits in a theoretical framework, and if it does not fit, how the framework must be adapted to fit the evidence.

That said, I check the refered person: Mark Armitage and read several sources.

Armitage acknowledges that he did that by keeping his views on the age of the fossil out of the paper. Written with biologist Kevin Lee Anderson of Arkansas State University-Beebe, the study simply reported that the horn was found in Hell Creek (which has a well-accepted age of 65 million to 70 million years). “It was just morphology,” says Mary Schweitzer, a palaeontologist at North Carolina State University at Raleigh who reviewed the work before publication, and made the first discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones in 2005. “It was fine.”

In order to be published he left out hos personal conviction, opinion and views. Which I find a credit to his person.

The ensuing legal issues are not caused by his publication. And this brings into view something else. If the evidence he found perfectly fits within the evolutionary theory, whence cometh your insistence that he had a peer reviewed scientific paper published with a young earth creationist slant?

Again ... you are misrepresenting things.

a reply to: Yvhmer

Further, your lack of knowledge also shows by equating Darwinism with theology. I am not sure by what you mean with Darwinism. Care to elaborate?

My lack of knowledge? Are you telling me that Darwinism is not theology and is scientific fact? If that is what you are saying then you had best get yourself some better professors. Its no wonder that U.S. is such a cluck in education and is 38th out of 71 countries in math and 24th in science. Among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.

So you are not sure what is meant by Darwinism and you are not sure of equating Darwinism with theology and you say that I have the lack of knowledge? True science is that which is provable and demonstrable and theoretical presentations by scientists is not true science. Its simply a guess at best to keep the grants in pockets. Prove to me that dinosaurs became extent 68 million years ago. Show me that soft tissue can survive 68 million years. Not true at all and if you want to stick your head in the sand and believe that then you are part of the problem.

a reply to: Yvhmer

The ensuing legal issues are not caused by his publication. And this brings into view something else. If the evidence he found perfectly fits within the evolutionary theory, whence cometh your insistence that he had a peer reviewed scientific paper published with a young earth creationist slant?

The university shouted Mark Armitage down as threatening him that he is not to teach Christianity in his classes. Christianity is regarded as new earth theology. That was the entirety of his being dismissed in that soft tissue cannot survive for 68 million years and Dinosaurs were exterminated 68 million years ago. If dinosaurs were extinct 68 million years ago and soft tissue was found in a dinosaur's horn then by all common sense that is saying the soft tissue is at least 68 million years old.

If biology teaches that this is accepted fact then they must prove and demonstrate the longevity of soft tissue along with the age of dinosaur's extinction. Otherwise it is not true science but is theoretical postulating. Both are nothing but guesses at best and not compatible with biblical theology whatsoever. Mark Armitage presented his paper as to the facts which are that you cannot claim that the dinosaur horn that he uncovered was 68 million years old with soft tissue surviving that length of time. Biology did not teach this as theoretical but taught it as fact when it is not true science.

Armitage is foremost a scientist but does not believe this world is 45 + billion years old. That enters into the mix only if you eliminate the theoretical postulating of biology that this world is 68 million or 45 + billion years ago. You have to have a fact as a base and work from that base. You cannot have a theoretical base and claim facts from that base. That is not true science. That is simply an opinion and that opinion is the accepted base till a better one comes along.

whence cometh your insistence that he had a peer reviewed scientific paper published with a young earth creationist slant?

As explained, if Armitage believed the world was 68 million or 45+ billion years old he would not have sued the university and in fact would not have taught his findings of soft tissue to his class and therefore would not have been fired. He would have simply played the game as the university demanded. You do not teach what the university forbids you to teach and survive as a professor. The American university's philosophy is old earth Darwinism evolution and if soft tissue could be proven to not survive 68 million years then it would blow biology to bits.

Lets say that if it cold be proven that soft tissue can only survive not over one million years [considering environmental conditions] what do you think that would do to this case? Laboratory experiments have confirmed that animal soft tissue cannot survive more than one million years in the environmental conditions that were created in the Lab. That is in the study that I read. Google that and see what you can find. You may find different study results but no where in the 68 million years range that California teaches.

a reply to: Seede

Thank you Seede for your energetic response.

My lack of knowledge? Are you telling me that Darwinism is not theology and is scientific fact?

It is the other way around, Seede. You claim DARWINISM=THEOLOGY. I did not. And the reason I requested for you to elaborate on what EXACTLY you mean by Darwinism (with a capital no less) as it is a moniker and not a scientific theory. Proof of that can be found in the book written by Thomas H. Huxley a year or two later than Darwin's Famous On the Origin of Species book. In it Huxley coins the term Darwinism and throws in ideas promulgated by Spencer and Malthus. And over time, it has become quite popular to throw in all new advances in the field of Evolution under this moniker.

And, it is quite courteous of me to request you to elaborate on what you mean exactly with the term, because I do not pretend to know things of you, I have no way of knowing. I do not assume. So the ass part in this case is yours to bear. You see, you DO assume quite a lot about me. For instance, you assume I hail from a higher educational background in the United States. I can say: you are wrong. Am I repeating myself?

Now we have established the D part of the equation, it is time to address the T side: theology:
Source: etymology

theology (n.) mid-14c., "the science of religion, study of God and his relationship to humanity," from Old French theologie "philosophical study of Christian doctrine; Scripture" (14c.), from Latin theologia, from Greek theologia "an account of the gods," from theologos "one discoursing on the gods," from theos "god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts) + -logos "treating of" (see -logy). Meaning "a particular system of theology" is from 1660s.

So, how exactly do the several proposed hypotheses of Evolution over time (lump sum Darwinism) eh ... pertain to the study of God (capital) and his relationship to humanity? Or how does it pertain to one discoursing on the gods? Or even worse: pertain to philosophical study of Christian doctrine.

hahaha, quite humorous, wouldn't you say? But let it not be said, I am merciless and not willing to extend a helping hand to my fellow human being. The way I see theology applicable to the lump sum is when we suppose the natural forces to be considered gods ....

This poses such an cognitive dissonance in my brain, I am going to be merciless: And since Darwin in his book: On the origin of Species has not even mentioned something like god or gods ... I very much would like to see you elaborate on this thesis. Of course you might argue that it supposes faith in a scientific theory. In that sense I would very much encourage you to look at Professor Lewin's experiment regarding the THEORY of conservation of energy, and question yourself whether you have such faith in scientific theory.

Further, you indicate that the US is 24th in rank when it comes to math. hmmm, I am not quite sure if such a broad sweeping statement without qualifiers can stand on it's own given the fact that being good at math is now considered white privilege. math and white privilege
Of course this is just a reference to a book written by a professor. The worrying part is in the second supposition. Based on that, if I were so inclined, I would start looking at the differences in grading when it comes to math between whites and other colors. And, I would submit to you the suspicion that, given the quality of the professors like this, it might be part of the problem of such an abysmal score.
So, in that sense, I think we can find some common ground here.

True science is that which is provable and demonstrable and theoretical presentations by scientists is not true science. Its simply a guess at best to keep the grants in pockets.

Interesting! So, have you read Darwin's : On the origin of Species? (my suspicion is no, but, given the fact that I do not assume, I leave the door open for a surprise ;-)) Or have you only read what certain people with your religious background have promulgated about it?

theory (n.) 1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from Late Latin theoria (Jerome), from Greek theoria "contemplation, speculation; a looking at, viewing; a sight, show, spectacle, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" (see theater) + horan "to see," which is possibly from PIE root *wer- (3) "to perceive." Earlier in this sense was theorical (n.), late 15c. Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art" (rather than its practice) is first recorded 1610s (as in music theory, which is the science of musical composition, apart from practice or performance). Sense of "an intelligible explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

So, for 300 years at least we perceive theory to be an intelligible explanation based on observation and reasoning. where observation of course also implies tests and results. And you simply try to superimpose another definition that represents only half of what theory actually is. Not to bright, folks, not too bright.

As I wrote in response to you regarding Mr Armitage, he was published because he left out his opinions on the age of the soft tissue. Do you understand what I just said in relation to you challenge:

Show me that soft tissue can survive 68 million years

Personally, I did not claim it. However. Your claim is that it's age is not 68 million years as you wrote:

So now that Mr. Armitage has presented accepted fact that science is wrong,

Again, he left out his opinions on the age question as a young earth creationist. And thus your statement is wrong!

Since you repeat the claim without giving any evidence, it is up to you to provide it. Just think about what this means: You claim: IT CANNOT EVER survive a 68 million year time-frame. On top a scientific theory can be wrong. To throw in all scientific disciplines in the "wrong" category, shows your real intent.

originally posted by: Yvhmer
You claim: Soft tissue CANNOT EVER survive a 68 million year time-frame. On top a scientific theory can be wrong. To throw in all scientific disciplines in the "wrong" category, shows your real intent.

This is not Seede's claim, this was generally accepted by scientific community that soft tissue would not preserve for 68 million years, let alone 68,000 years. Therefore, when soft tissue was discovered in dinosaurs, the scientific community had to change the goal posts, because you know, a lot of scientists based their entire life off the validity of the evolution fantasy - you have many, many people who will lie to the grave as long as it doesn't mean considering the possibility that their life's work was totally inaccurate.

The Truth will prove itself eventually.

a reply to: Yvhmer

As I wrote in response to you regarding Mr Armitage, he was published because he left out his opinions on the age of the soft tissue. Do you understand what I just said in relation to you challenge: Show me that soft tissue can survive 68 million years Personally, I did not claim it. However. Your claim is that it's age is not 68 million years as you wrote:

You keyed many words of which most had no relevancy to the subject. I have said all that needs to be said in regards to Mr. Armitage and his challenge to accepted biology. The University of California was found in error in what they taught in their biology classes and regardless of what I am or where I am from or what I know is not relevant to this subject.

Cooperton has understood this correctly in that the curriculum of the university had established the teaching that dinosaurs became extinct some 68 million years ago. Now that means any portion of any dinosaur would be at least 68 million years old. The soft tissue found by Mr. Armitage is therefore accepted by this science of biology in that university. That is an unproven science and not factual at all. The world is said to be 45 + billion years old. That also is unproven science and is strictly theoretical as is also 68 million years.

Now simply because I said that the world is not proven to be 45 billion years old is not for me to prove it is not 45 billion years old but is the responsibility of the scientific authorities to prove it is 45 billion years old. I think you have your cart before the horse.

Either way you replace O Heylel with the king of Babylon and all the confusion ends.

a reply to: Seede

I reply to you seede and to you cooperton.

Since you both jump on the fence in regards to Mr Armitage, Cooperton received an elaborate answer from me regarding the scientific paper Mr Armitage worte. So I am not going to repeat myself, and provide you with the link to my post, which I encourage you to read with attention. And please, do all of us the courtesy of really thinking things through before you answer.

Here goes nothing:

Rebuttal of the Appeal to authority claim : Mr Armitage

To recap: Mr Armitage published a paper with a fellow scientist, a research paper embedded in a lager question which was brought up by the lead scientist: Mary Schweitzer in 2004 (so 8 years before MR Armitage and he cannot be celebrated for his brillance in this) concerning soft tissue in dino fossils.
Mary Schweitzer also recognizes that, given this rarity becoming more common, the reason for it's existence must be looked into. So, in 2013 she published some of her findings, that iron helps to preserve softtissue over millions of years without microbial interference. Almost a year after the paper referenced by you.

In the Armitage paper, or rather Armitage/ Anderson paper, there is no dating mentioned. The dating mentioned by Mr armitage is of his own. The difference, he does not have the scientific honesty to to:
1. Attribute the paper to both himself and Mr Anderson, and the reference on his website is wrong.
2. He does not differentiate between his opinion/ speculation/ position and the paper, which does not relate to age!
3. He strategically and conveniently leaves out the update on the mechanism how soft tissue can stand the test of time.

My question is: DID you ACTUALLY read the scientific paper at all? Did you do actually investigate the actual sources? If we cannot agree on at least what is in the paper and the intention Mr Armitage has with it, and the subsequent inquiry as to the mechanism that allows for conservation of soft tissue, which he also had not the scientific courage to mention, I see, alas, no reason to pursue a discussion with you two.

Cooperton wrote:
Note the response of the scientific community to the soft tissue. Initially they called MAry Schweitzer a lying hag, until it was indisputable that soft tissue appears often in the dinosaur remains..

Interesting. You are trying to say something without saying it. ..... So, let's again be clear: Mary Schweitzer dealt with soft tissue in 2004. It took 8 years to establish .... establish!!!! that it is quite common. And now this same mrs Schweitzer has shot the claim you skyhook your creationism on, by providing the very mechanism soft tissue can stand the test of 68 million years.

It is like we are looking at a picture and you claim to see ghosts. And when I ask where do you see ghosts in the picture your answer is: I see ghosts.

Cooperton in the other thread is quite concerned that kids are being taught to be nothing but meaningless mutant monkey's shows either his immense dissatisfaction with .gov eduction, or complete nescience as monkey's and mankind share a common ancestor...

And by the way ... what is it with you guys ...Many kids stories are about animals doing human things, or stories have been reworked and placed in the animal kingdom. Kids grow up with anthropomorphic ideas, plays, movies, songs. toys. They relate quite natural to animals.

But ! Given cooperton his angst regarding something I highly doubt btw, (would love to see proof of that), if what you have shown me concerning your powers of reasoning is representative for the best you can do, I am more inclined to feel angst regarding what you inculcate your kids with regards to the cult you hail from than anything else.

Just know, I perfectly understand where you are coming from. And if you want to do yourself a big service and your cause, and that would also benefit us, (this is a case of someone asking you for your garments and then you give also your undergarments as the good C's you are) be at least honest with publicly available information. When you misrepresent here, you might also be misrepresenting in bigger things, I believe your Greatest Teacher once said. And that will downgrade your credibility. below zero. And as cooperton so gracefully lamented by invoking the Spanish inquisition .... that is what happens.

a reply to: Seede/cooperton

I am afraid I have a few more questions:
Who is claiming the world is 45 billion years old? In fact, if that is what you rely on, science does agree with you.

As regard to the 68 million years: cooperton has come up with that? hmmm, Since I am not trusting given the exchange so far, I would have to ask where and how you did come up with that.

To add insult to injury, I give you a link to a series of articles, recounting how science has grappled with the question: how old is the earth. What you will hopefully find, is that is gives some insight in how science works, builds, develops over time, the mistakes and cul de sacs that were encountered and how it was dealt with it, how science, given the breadth of disciplines it has and the rigorous method it represents. From the articles I am sure you will be able to find the relevant science papers if you are so inclined.

Age of the earth

a reply to: Blue Shift

Jesus was the one preaching revolution.

Seriously? I'm curious how you see that.