Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

Originally posted by edmc^2
Why are you automatically assuming that this is a "religious dogma" just because Creation is mentioned and fit's the facts? And contrary to what you said - I looked at the evidence from a scientific point of view - not the other way around. But you can look at it too from Biblical point of view.

Fits? Only in the loosest sense of the word "fit". Again, you started working under the assumption that the Bible is "divinely inspired" and worked backward from there to reach your conclusions. The only evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired is that the Bible says it's divinely inspired.

On the contrary, having knowledge of mathematics, physics, chemistry, or biology, etc is a plus. They actually enhance our understanding of how things were made but they have their limits imho as they are not able to fully explain why they were made. So the more we know the more we come to understanding (at least to me) why things are the way they are.

Asking why they were made presupposes that they were made, and in the context of the conversation it seems as though you're using made to imply a creator. Again, you already had your conclusion in mind before you started.

Note also what I said: "Amazing thing also is that it doesn't even require an advance knowledge of mathematics, physics and science to be able to see the the overwhelming evidence of Creation(although it's good to have one)."

I know. I was simply giving my interpretation of what you said. Much like how you're giving your interpretation of what the Bible says.

Curiosity is what drove me at a young age to find out these things and I'm sure many have asked the same questions - where did all of these came from? Were they created? Who created them, ect?

The answer I got from my formative years were unsatisfactory - noone created them - they just came to be - by an unguided process. Using math and science as tools - I came to realize the order and harmony of Creation. As for humility, it takes humility to accept that a Creator was responsible for all of it.

So it's personal incredulity that's driving you to make the Bible fit scientific fact via some heavy-handed subjective interpretation.

Case in point - will you accept based on the evidence presented that they (life, earth and the universe) were Created?

Based on the evidence that you've presented here? No. If you look at the evidence that you've presented from a neutral point of view rather than from one that presupposes a creator, it's thoroughly lacking.

Discovery Institute - sorry I don't go to that site and yes there are many experts in various fields who came to the same conclusion as I did. These experts are now full ministers of God in addition to their field of expertise (of course they are not recognized as such by the scientific community - as expected).

What fields are they experts in? How many is "many"? Will I be able to find just as many, if not more, experts in the same fields that would disagree with their conclusions?

Can you please name one that can match the Bible? I'd like to know.

Match the Bible in what way? The strongest of your three claims thus far is an ex nihilo creation myth, which is featured in many cultures.

Here, let me please post the question to you again:
Fact 1: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

How did Moses, a “goat herder” (as referred to here on ATS) get the facts right? How did he knew that the universe (heavens) and the earth had a beginning whereas these amazing scientific facts were known just recently (1900s)? How could a man 3500 years ago be able say, write what science just recently discovered? Think also of the amount of time, money, knowledge and technology to conclusively show that the universe had a beginning. Yet a “goat herder” knew the facts! How was it possible?

Sorry, but I just don't see anything profound about claiming that the universe had a beginning regardless of the level of scientific knowledge of the time. We're humans. We have been anthropomorphizing things since time immemorial. We have a beginning, so why shouldn't the universe have one?

If the Bible is not Divinely Inspired what is the obvious and logical answer to the Qs above?

The obvious and logical answer? That you decided upon a conclusion and are grasping at any interpretation of the Bible to support that, no matter how tenuous and subjective.

Since the facts support the Biblical statement that the universe (heavens) had a beginning then it follows that it was created by God as Gen 1:1 states. But if you believe that the universe had a beginning - then how did it came to be? Was it created or did it just came to be?

My not knowing how the universe came to be isn't an implication that God did it. It just means that I don't know.

Logic, math, science and commons sense tells me that when something is designed/created then it must have a designer/creator - do you believe this logic? Yet atheist and evolutionists believe the opposite and I get accused of being nonsensical.

The examples you've drawn in previous threads to imply a designer/creator are things that we have seen to be designed/created. We did not see the universe being designed/created. It's a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.

As for myths - yes there are many myths, but they are just that - myths, nothing more nothing less. But the Biblical statements that I presented are backed up by facts! Undeniable facts - not just wishful claims or as you say "myths".

So are the rest of the myths! Every time a myth, via loose subjective interpretation, describes some feature of the natural world, it gives it as much weight as the Bible. Sorry, but you don't get to cherry pick which sources of truth you want to place credence in if they're all equally correct.

-- I didn't say dark matter is the same a “fine gauze” - I merely stated the facts according to what scientist saw in their imaging instruments. Which confirms that it looks like a "fine gauze".

I don't think it looks like a fine gauze at all. Again, very subjective interpretation.

I hope you're not confusing the two: Job was talking about the "earth" while Isaiah was talking about the "heavens". And yes both of them are supported by facts as we've already seen, and no they are not as you say "huge stretch in interpretation". As for pi - I think you're getting super-super-super critical of the Bible that even an approximation of a circumference of a circle - is regarded as a "huge stretch in interpretation." Need to lighten up a bit there if I may suggest.

The Earth hangs in the heavens, the heavens are described as being a fine gauze, like a tent over our heads. If the Earth hangs in nothing, then where did the fine gauzy tent go?

And my citation of the pi reference is a stretch? Are you kidding me? How is it any more of a stretch than anything you've posted here? So I'm not allowed to interpret something written literally - that the lake was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around - and use it to assert that they had the value of pi wrong, but you can take poetry and assert it's scientific fact? Hypocrisy at its finest.

Unless you want to stretch it beyond its simple and elegant mening. I hope not.

I think you've already done that enough for the both of us.

Looking forward to the sequel, even though I suspect it will be more of the same.

reply to post by HardbeatAcolyte


Yeah No problem.

Here is another source you need to look at.

It is called the expulsion list. It involves the Jews and all the countries they have been kicked out of.

www.eretzyisroel.org...

The Jews were kicked out for specific reasons. Mostly because they use Usury to destroy countries, by influencing the economy.

rationalwiki.org...

You can see what happened to people in history due to the Rothschilds banking clan.

The most recent things they have been doing is our current economy in 2007-2011, the German Economy after hyperinflation, Ukraine and the 1929 economy in the U.S.

Here are links to what Ukraine and Germany. And Yes it all is involved with Religion.

Ukraine Starvation Link
en.wikipedia.org...

Germany's Hyper Inflation
www.youtube.com...

Germany and Ukraine is where the U.S. would of ended up and you can thank the Rothschilds and the Illuminati for it, they have been around a very long time.

They use religion to keep people distracted so they don't know much about history.

They say if you look far enough into history you can see the future and history repeats itself.

Hi Crimsonhead --

I take it your Koine Greek is not up to scratch...you should be able to see immediately the differences in efflorescent non Pauline Greek style between say I-II Timothy & Titus and the more Pauline style of utterance e.g. Galatians and Romans (and also 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians and Philemon) - which are the more-authentic Pauline 'epistles' - this should be clear even if you can't manage Greek and have to rely on all those paltry American English translations - go ahead and compare the Pastorals (1 and 2 Timothy & Titus) with Romans and Galatians and 1 Corinitians and 1 Thessalonians in English (if that's all you can read).

In terms of Saul of Tarsus v. the Nazorean Ebionites (headed up by Yakkov bar Yosef, the 'blood brother' of 'Iesous') read 'Galatians' chapter 2 (even in English...) for a taste of the nasties that passed between the two camps (i.e. the Ebionite Daviddic 'kosher-eating and circumcised' family of 'Iesous' and the mainly gentile followers of the self proclaimed Apostle 'Paul'...Also Acts 15 shows that there was a rift between the two camps with Yakkov ('James, the Lord's Brother') demandding that Paul give a large donation to the Nazorean Ebionim ('the Poor Ones') in Jerusalem--

Acts Chapter 15 describes a watered down, smoothed over account off the violent the face-off between the Nazorean Ebionites under ‘James the Lord’s Brother’ and the gentile loving, torah-hating Pauline ‘Salvation by Faith’ Splinter Groups in Asia Minor who refused to circumcise their gentile newbies or force them to eat kashrut or obey the Laws of Moses, in DIRECT contradiction to the command of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean Nazir, as outlined in the Ebionite Nazorean gospel ‘acccording to matthew’ (whoever he was)

(‘And he said to them, Who ever does not obey every jot and tittle of the Laws of Moses, or tells others to ignore the Law shall be called Least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but he who strictly adheres to all the Laws of Moses and encourages others to do so shall be called Great in the Kingdom of Heaven...’)

We see the split between the two theologies by reading the so-called Epistle of James (based on the preaching of Yakkov bar Yosef, ‘the Lord’s Brother) who preached ‘salvation by Mitzvot & Maasah’ (i.e. commandments and ‘works’ echoed by R. Yehoshua’s own teaching, ‘let your light so shine before the sons of men, that they WITNESS YOUR MITZVOT (i.e. good works, lit. ‘commandments’) and give glory to your Father in Heaven…’)

Read all about the schism between the Daiddic led Messianic Nazorean Ebionites and the Pauline torah-hating apostates ini Acts chapter 15 – here it is in English, since Koine seems a bit too much for you apparently:

Acts 15:1ff (major extracts)

“And it happened that some [Ebionite Nazoreans] came down from Judea to Antioch who used to teach teaching their own [followers]: “Unless your males are circumcised, according to the laws of Mosheh, you are not worthy of the Life.”

Now this Doctrine [of Forced Circumcision of the Gentiles] brought Paul (and also Barnabas) into a raging dispute with those [Nazorean] emissaries sent from Jerusalem.

So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the 12 and also the elders about this hotly debated issue.

The Communities paid all off their passage as they journeyed on through Phoenicia and Shomeron, and they bragged how they converted the goyim to their faith which at first gladdened the hearts of the Many who heard of it.

When the followers of Paul entered Jerusalem, they were originally welcomed by the Community and also by the 12 and by the Elders to whom they reported what they had achieved.

Then hearing what they had done with the gentiles, the leaders of the [Nazoreans] those who followed certain teachings of the Pharisim stood up and said, “Don’t you know that all the Goyim (=gentiles, non Jews) are required to be circumcised and to keep kashrut diet and adhere to the all laws of Moses?”

Hearing more of the contents of Paul’s preaching the 12 and the Elders of the Jerusalem Community began to meet in closed session to vote on a resolution

After much discussion, Kephah rose to address the Council saying “Brothers, you know that some time ago the Most High made a choice among you that the goyim might hear from my lips the message to believe the Good News of the Kingdom of Heaven; and our clan-god who knows the hearts of all the sons off men proved he accepted them by granting them the gifts of the Holy Spirit – the same as he did for us the 12.
The Most High ddid not discriminate between us and them, but purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?

It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it too difficult for the Goyim who are converting to worshipping the one tru God...instead we should write to them, telling them to merely abstain from food made ritually unclean by contact with vanity (=idols) to abstain from sexual immorality, and also from the meat of strangled animals and from consuming blood - for the law of Moses is being preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath...”

Then the 12 and the Elders, with the whole Yahad ('Congregation') decided to select their own [Ebionite] representatives and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas - they chose Yehudah bar Sabbah (Judas Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders of the Ebionim in Jerusalem…

Later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us return to visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word to check on their progress…and Barnabas wished to one take John-Mark, with them, but Paul disagreed because he had deserted them in Pamphylia.

Then Barnabas and Paul had such a violent Argument other that they ended up parting company in anger, with Barnabas taking John Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left in a huff….later when Paul arrived at Derbe and Lystra, they found Timothy living there, a follower of the Way whose mother was a Jewess and looking for the Kingdom, but whose father was a Greek gentile--those of the Faith at both Lystra & Iconium spoke well of him and Paul wished to take him along so went ahead and had Timothy circumcised -- mainly because of the demands of the Judaeans [Nazorean Ebionites] who were living in the region – since they all were aware that Timothy's father was a Greek gentile…”

So it would seem that even as late as the mid 50's the Nazorean Ebionites out of Jerusalem were still very much in control and able to bark orders to Paul and his outsiders (at least, they seemed to have been in power in Jerusalem before the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome wiped them out in AD 70) – their Ebionite bishops (Meqqaberim, or ‘overseers’ cf: Greek ‘Epi-Skopoi’ lit. overseers) were in fact all chosen from the Daviddic blood lineage of the family of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef (Gk. Iesous), headed up at the time by James ‘the Lord’s blood-brother’--most of whom were killed by the Romans during the 1st Failed Jewish War against Rome (AD 66-72)

Yet all of this seems like NEWS to you !!

Well, here is an obvious remedy (in addition to taking a Koine Greek and Aramaic class so you can read the texts for yourself !)

Ref: the necessary background on all of this sordid schism of Christianity away from the blood relatives of ‘Iesous’ – and on especially how the non Nazorean torah hating gentile ‘Paulinists’ eventually took over the doctrines of the Catholic and Greek churches, check out a book written by a Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby entitled THE MYTHMAKER: PAUL & THE INVENTION of CHRISTIANITY which I think you can get on Amazon in paperback. He does not tell all, but Maccoby lays the basic groundwork for persons like yourself who seem completely in the dark about these little matters…

And you thought I was the one in the dark ! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......

reply to post by iterationzero

Fits? Only in the loosest sense of the word "fit".

Loosest sense? You mean this?

For example:

Fact 1) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

To the best of my ability - I understand the text above as a “beginning” “a start” and whatever synonym can be applied to the word 'BEGINNING”.

Scientific evidence tells us indeed that the Universe had a “beginning”. How much more looser can we understand that?

Does Genesis 1:1 “fit” the scientific fact of a “beginning”? Evidence says yes.

Then you said:

Again, you started working under the assumption that the Bible is "divinely inspired" and worked backward from there to reach your conclusions.

.

The difference between you and I is that I can go forward and backward when it comes to the Holy Scriptures and the result will still be the same – that:

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Here's let me show you what I mean - let's use Fact 1 again:

Scientific evidence show that the universe had a beginning (big bang) – does the Bible agree with this fact? Evidence says yes.

Or how about this way:

The Bible says that the “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1 – does the evidence show this to be so? That the universe had a beginning? Again the fact says yes INDEED!

Now where did I interpret the scriptures here? This is a cold fact – no need to... as you say that I...

....decided upon a conclusion and are grasping at any interpretation of the Bible to support that, no matter how tenuous and subjective.

Interestingly, since you've mentioned it, why do proponents of evolution allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way how they view the evidence?

For example – the discovery of a single tooth or a bone fragment by anthropologists in support of evolution – what is the conclusion that they will likely present? Creation or Evolution?

Now please consider the following:

Since the evidence that the Universe had a beginning was discovered just recently (1900s), how did Moses the writer of Genesis knew the FACT 3500 years ago?

Merely saying:

Sorry, but I just don't see anything profound about claiming that the universe had a beginning regardless of the level of scientific knowledge of the time. We're humans. We have been anthropomorphizing things since time immemorial. We have a beginning, so why shouldn't the universe have one?

doesn’t CUT IT! It's a cop-out!

But if you insist please show me a book that is as old or even older than the Bible that accurately “fits” scientific facts - to back up your claim.

and if you still want to insist that:

We're humans. We have been anthropomorphizing things since time immemorial. We have a beginning, so why shouldn't the universe have one?

Are you saying then that Moses' statement at Genesis 1:1 is accurate due to “anthropomorphizing”?

If so is “anthropomorphizing” scientific? Is that what you're saying – I'm not interpreting your words but merely trying to understand them.

Because what he said at Gen 1:1 that the universe had a beginning – it agrees with scientific facts.

What about his mentioning “God” as the Creator of the “heavens and the earth”? Will you also consider this accurate as a result of his “anthropomorphizing”? Is it scientific?

I'm curious – what say you?

Also what about the rest of his writings? Are they also the result of “anthropomorphizing”?

What about the man Job?

How did he know that the earth is “hanging the earth upon nothing”? - Is this also the result of “anthropomorphizing”? If so how could such a primitive person (in comparison to ours) able to match our knowledge when it comes to space age information? How did he figure out that the
earth is “hanging the earth upon nothing”?

Is the“ level of scientific knowledge of the time” equal to ours? That is why they got it right?

Or is it due due to “anthropomorphizing”?

But like what stated in the OP:

Whether you agree or not, to me the obvious, clear and logical answer is:

THey got the information from someone who has knowledge of space and time. From someone who transcends the material universe because he made it and hence existed before it was. From someone who posses enormous power, with the ability to convert “dynamic energy” into matter (E=mc2 - Isa 40:26 NWT)). In other words Moses was divinely inspired by God the Creator of the heavens and earth - the Almighty God (YHWH - Jehovah/Yahweh). To which he says:

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Gen. 1:1.

Do the facts show this to be so? There's no doubt about it!

I'll leave it here for now and get back with the rest later.


Ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by edmc^2

 

Now that you've had a chance to look at the sacred geometry stuff I posted, I'd be curious to get your take on it. One of the things that really struck me was the appearance of Carbon, Nitrogen, and Oxygen on "Days 5 and 6" and corresponding to the addition of the 6th, 7th, and 8th spheres. I didn't realize that before I put the presentation together. Those are certainly important for the development of life.

I'd also be curious to get your take on the similarities in the creation stories. My mom countered them by saying that Satan placed the similarities in other cultures to tempt and distract. Needless to say I didn't agree with her.

So what do you think?

My apologies coyotepoet - I was not able to reply back as the information you've presented are quite new to me and also - I usaully stay away from Mystic disciplines.

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by peter vlar

I know there's no way in hell anything I have to say will ever change your mind or even help you see things from another point of view, but seeing a correlation between 6500 year old stories and current science is NOT evidence. you trying to interpret old bible passages and line them up with science that you can make work in your own mind is not much different than someone reading a Nostradamus quatrain and correlating it with something that has already happened and saying, "Look, here's my proof. Nostradamus wrote this 500 years ago and it came true!" It's not even pseudoscience, it's cherry picking facts that lean towards your point of view and claiming you took an objective scientific look at it which is completely false because you already believed in "god". remember, correlation is not the equivalent of causation.

I'm surprised, you asked for scientific evidence and when provided in support of the Bible you dismiss it as "false" because as you said I already believed in "god". That I cherry pick it - so that the "facts... lean towards" my "point of view".

So would you rather want me then to quote the entire Bible here and try to explain them verse by verse so show that each verse is scientific? Or look for all the scientific facts and find them in the Bible? If so, will you not accused of being a "Bible thumper" or an assiduous bible quoter?

Yet what I did is merely show just a few facts out of hundreds - and I was immediately declared as someone who:

who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh." -Astyanax

In any case - do you dispute the evidence presented in the OP? Are they scientific or not? If not which one?

IF scientific - did the Bible contradict them?

If not then where did the Bible writers get their information from? Are you able to grasp this?

What say you?

anyway tx for your input...

edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2

My apologies coyotepoet - I was not able to reply back as the information you've presented are quite new to me and also - I usaully stay away from Mystic disciplines.

No problems. Just curious. I understand your position on mysticism given your theological point of view. However there is nothing there that is demonic or witchcrafty. In fact, when I began studying it, sacred geometry helped me understand and appreciate God and God's creation on a whole new level, deepening my faith (even though I don't follow the typical Christian script-I consider myself to be a Mystic Christian with New Age, Buddhist, and Pagan leanings) My mom says she doesn't want to know about it because she thinks it's somehow sacreligious to understand God in that way. I'm not sure why but that's where she is-that's where a lot of Christians are.

reply to post by edmc^2


SO you take the most gossamar links from the bible to modern scientific theory and make the radical leap to God Like productions. Im confused - please tell me why the Bible doesn't speak of galaxies, solar systems, astro-physics - and why instead it speaks in such esoteric, almost completely unrelated to the universe vernacular which to have any relevance WHAT SO EVER must be read in - deciphered as though it were code ? Thats right - the bible doesn't ACTUALLY say any of this tosh - you are saying it says it ......

Perhps you could also enlighten me as to why they church vehemently (punishable by death) insisted that the earth was at the center of the universe ? Especially since the bible was written by man ? Did man write something so confusing he could not understand it ? Did man write something which was inspired by God, but very, very trickily inspired by God - so trickily in fact that man went around killing hundreds of people for mis-reading it - rather correctly reading it, but telling people what the truth was, Gods truth (that the earth was not the centre of the universe)........or perhaps man was simply not able to understand what he himself had written about what God himself had told him and until now - when science is able to explain what man wrote down about what God said - ........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..

Seems incredibly absurd - in fact the whole situation seems so fantastically absurd that it would fit perfectly well into a commedy sketch - in fact I can not believe that anyone - anyone at all - could be so incredibly STUPID to even think that anyone ELSE would be dumb enough to fall for this ridiculous fable.

One more time - God said we are part of the universe, inspired man to write this down in a book, which man write down, but didn't understand either what was said, or what he had written for a couple of thousand years, until now when science which implicitly repudiates everything the bible says with explicit scientific evidence is co-opted as the foundation for fantasy based explanation of pre-enlightened fables of Gods and mystical beings because there are some very tenuous similarities between vocabulary which could be reinterpreted as in a thousand ways but you expects us to believe the correct one is not the one which all the evidence points towards, but rather one which absolutely no evidence points towards and that is the existence of a fabulous all knowing, all seeing omnipotent individual who created us for want of nothing better to do and then simply left it at that and was never, ever heard from ever again in any shape or form ..........you have got to be kidding me.

Cheers.

reply to post by Aristophrenia

and then simply left it at that and was never, ever heard from ever again in any shape or form

Oh you will hear all about it, soon, from him and his son. I hope you live long enough to see it. God actually promised all humanity this. A persons personal belief and faith structure is totally irrelevant.

Ezekiel 38:23

Thus will I demonstrate My greatness and My holiness, and I will be recognized, understood, and known in the eyes of many nations; yes, they shall know that I am the Lord [the Sovereign Ruler, Who calls forth loyalty and obedient service].

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Oh you will hear all about it, soon, from him and his son. I hope you live long enough to see it. God actually promised all humanity this. A persons personal belief and faith structure is totally irrelevant.

People have been claiming that God is coming back any day now for a few millennia. What makes your claim of "soon" any more reliable? And what does "soon" mean, anyway?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


This is one of the things that I find amazing. It seems that "the end is near" has been repeated since just about the beginning and billions of humans have come and gone yet some christians can say things like "Oh you will hear all about it, soon" not only with conviction but even with a certain amount of arrogance.

reply to post by Aristophrenia

SO you take the most gossamar links from the bible to modern scientific theory and make the radical leap to God Like productions. Im confused - please tell me why the Bible doesn't speak of galaxies, solar systems, astro-physics - and why instead it speaks in such esoteric, almost completely unrelated to the universe vernacular which to have any relevance WHAT SO EVER must be read in - deciphered as though it were code ? Thats right - the bible doesn't ACTUALLY say any of this tosh - you are saying it says it ......

Huh? gossamar links? As in Looney tunes?

You mean Genesis 1:1? The very first verse in the Bible is a radical “leap to God Like productions”?

I’m confused too with your statement– what are u talkin about?

But as for

“why the Bible doesn't speak of galaxies, solar systems, astro-physics - and why instead it speaks in such esoteric, almost completely unrelated to the universe vernacular which to have any relevance WHAT SO EVER must be read in - deciphered as though it were code.”

First off – I not sure if you know but the Bible is not a scientific book like the science text books you normally deal with BUT when it touches / deals with REAL science – it’s accurate!

Case in point – just the three Facts provided in the OP (and the others on Part II).

And what’s so esoteric about the verses that I quoted?

It’s not a secret thing, or something to decipher as “though it were code.” If you have something specific please let me know but on topic, what I presented are readily available to all. It’s not a hidden knowledge but it requires some study though and research. If one is not inclined to do it, then just like anything else in life one can never reach it if one doesn’t have the urge to do it. It also requires humility to accept the things written in the Bible and most of all a personal relationship with God. If one do not have any of these things then what the scripture say becomes true:

“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” (1 Corinthians 3:19)

Perhps you could also enlighten me as to why they church vehemently (punishable by death) insisted that the earth was at the center of the universe ? Especially since the bible was written by man?

You’re correct on both counts, and I’m sure you’re already aware that this is one the reasons why many don’t want to believe the Bible. Because of misrepresenting the Bible and God many are disillusioned. But it’s not a valid reason to doubt the authenticity the Bible. In fact like in Jesus day, he condemned the religious leaders of his time:

Notice what he said:
“He said to them: “Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’” (Mark 7:6-7)

For this Jesus was killed.

As for the Bible being “written by man” – here’s what they said: (I’ll cite three)

2 Timothy
Writer: Paul
Place Written: Rome
Writing Completed: c. 65 C.E.

“All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness,” (2 Timothy 3:16)

2 Peter
Writer: Peter
Place Written: Babylon (?)
Writing Completed: c. 64 C.E.

“For YOU know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit.” (2 Peter 1:20-21)

Revelation
Writer: Apostle John
Place Written: Patmos
Writing Completed: c. 96 C.E.

“A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented [it] in signs through him to his slave John, 2 who bore witness to the word God gave and to the witness Jesus Christ gave, even to all the things he saw.” (Revelation 1:1-2)

“By inspiration I came to be in the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a strong voice like that of a trumpet, 11 saying: “What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations, in Eph′e•sus and in Smyr′na and in Per′ga•mum and in Thy•a•ti′ra and in Sar′dis and in Philadelphia and in La•o•di•ce′a.”” (Revelation 1:10-11)

Did man write something so confusing he could not understand it ? Did man write something which was inspired by God, but very, very trickily inspired by God - so trickily in fact that man went around killing hundreds of people for mis-reading it - rather correctly reading it, but telling people what the truth was, Gods truth (that the earth was not the centre of the universe)........or perhaps man was simply not able to understand what he himself had written about what God himself had told him and until now - when science is able to explain what man wrote down about what God said - ........hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..

The simple answer is NO!

Consider the following verses from the Bible itself:

“This commandment that I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far away.”—Deuteronomy 30:11.

“The very disclosure of your words gives light, making the inexperienced ones understand.”—Psalm 119:130.

“In that very hour [Jesus] became overjoyed in the holy spirit and said: ‘I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have carefully hidden these things from wise and intellectual ones, and have revealed them to babes.’”—Luke 10:21.

So as you can see the Author of the Bible does, indeed, want us to understand his Word! Man (the so called wise and intellectual ones) made it difficult to understand because of traditions and misconceptions.

Seems incredibly absurd - in fact the whole situation seems so fantastically absurd that it would fit perfectly well into a commedy sketch - in fact I can not believe that anyone - anyone at all - could be so incredibly STUPID to even think that anyone ELSE would be dumb enough to fall for this ridiculous fable.

The scriptures say to you:

“Let no one be seducing himself: If anyone among YOU thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.” 20 And again: “Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.” (1 Corinthians 3:18-20)

One more time - God said we are part of the universe, inspired man to write this down in a book, which man write down, but didn't understand either what was said, or what he had written for a couple of thousand years, until now when science which implicitly repudiates everything the bible says with explicit scientific evidence is co-opted as the foundation for fantasy based explanation of pre-enlightened fables of Gods and mystical beings because there are some very tenuous similarities between vocabulary which could be reinterpreted as in a thousand ways but you expects us to believe the correct one is not the one which all the evidence points towards, but rather one which absolutely no evidence points towards and that is the existence of a fabulous all knowing, all seeing omnipotent individual who created us for want of nothing better to do and then simply left it at that and was never, ever heard from ever again in any shape or form ..........you have got to be kidding me.

On the contrary – true science confirmed what the Bible said millenniums of years ago. If you’ve read the OP then you will see and understand why and how.

As for:

but rather one which absolutely no evidence points towards and that is the existence of a fabulous all knowing, all seeing omnipotent individual who created us for want of nothing better to do and then simply left it at that and was never, ever heard from ever again in any shape or form .

Fact is his been with mankind since time immemorial – his letter the Bible exist for this very reason. All of the things he wanted to say and wanted to do for the benefit of mankind are ALL in there, from the start to the finished and into the future. It’s sad if you think that it’s just a mere work of man. If you do - then my friend your missing its grand purpose.

“Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU who have been blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for YOU from the founding of the world.” (Matthew 25:34)

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by iterationzero



Quick Q for you if you don't mind - from my last reply to you:

Why do proponents of evolution allow their own presupposed conclusions to influence the way how they view the evidence?

For example – the discovery of a single tooth or a bone fragment by paleonthologist in support of evolution – what is the conclusion that they will likely present? Creation or Evolution?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


You never really answered the Carbon Dating thing...

just a heads up...

The Bible wasn't created Millenniums ago either...according to the bible

www.creationtips.com...

6000 years ago.

Radio Carbon Dating

www.freerepublic.com...

400,000 year old spears found in an German coal mine!

Your Logic is flawed...

Originally posted by Quickfix
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You never really answered the Carbon Dating thing...

just a heads up...

The Bible wasn't created Millenniums ago either...according to the bible

www.creationtips.com...

6000 years ago.

Radio Carbon Dating

www.freerepublic.com...

400,000 year old spears found in an German coal mine!

Your Logic is flawed...

Thanks for reminding me about his Quickfix - got sidetract.

I must admit - I'm not well verse on c14 dating but I'll read through the link you posted and (again) get back with a reply. Don't want to misstate something.

But before I go my way - i have a quick Qs:

Is carbon dating based on an accurate data or assumed data (samples)?

What I mean is - how sure is it that the half-life of carbon 14 is correct? Up to what point is it accurate?

ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Here is Wikipedia for you.

en.wikipedia.org...

58,000 to 62,000 years

The spears lasted longer due to

Radiocarbon dating has confirmed that three wooden spears found in a coal mine in Schöningen, near Hannover, Germany, are the oldest complete hunting weapons ever found. Some 380,000 to 400,000 years old, the six- to 7.5-foot javelins were found in soil whose acids had been neutralized by a high concentration of chalk near the coal pit.

So dissolving the spears carbon had been neutralized. So that is why they were preserved so well..

Your turn

reply to post by Quickfix


I'm kinda wondering why you posted the link about the age of the earth as 6000.

I hope you read the OP - cuz in there I said this:

#Note: The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation. Based on known scientific, mathematical, astronomical facts the earth is around 4byo and the universe around 13byo (for now – might change). Gen. 1:1 does not disagree with the established facts. But the 6000 to 10000 year old earth does not fit these well known facts – geologic strata.

But from my last post - are you able to answer the Qs I asked?
Because it's related to your questions.

btw - I found this funny story about c14:

The story said that eleven years ago, an artistic South African grandmother, Joan Ahrens, produced some fine paintings using rocks as her canvases, imitating traditional Bushman art. Later, one of her painted rocks was picked up in the veld near her former home in the city of Pietermaritzburg. Eventually it got into the hands of the curator of the city’s museum. Unaware of the origin of this rock art, the curator had it dated in England by the Oxford University radio carbon accelerator unit. Experts estimated that the painting was 1,200 years old! Why such an embarrassing error? “It has since been established,” according to a report in South Africa’s Sunday Times, “that the oil paint used by Mrs Ahrens contained natural oils which contained carbon—the only substance dated by Oxford.”

--> not sure what this proves but there u go -


ty
edmc2

reply to post by iterationzero

People have been claiming that God is coming back any day now for a few millennia. What makes your claim of "soon" any more reliable? And what does "soon" mean, anyway?

That's right, they have. People have been saying that since Christ left. Because he said he would. I see no reason for him to lie. Even if he were capable. So naturally, people who believe are going to say this..
People have been believing and professing. Breath in, breath out. The thing is, they didn't have anything but the book to tell them and that was enough for them. You have the book and if you had any interest in it, you'd also
know the signs are happening. The predicted end is very close. You have many ways to see the truth. But you simply will not. Because of this you will be counted amoung those whom God will send, "Strong delusion that they shall believe a lie. Because they would not believe the truth".

Yep people have been say'in this. You have heard this. Do you see that you will have no excuse when he does?
I imagine after he comes back. You prolly won't hear it after that. Breath in breath out..

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by peter vlar

 

I know there's no way in hell anything I have to say will ever change your mind or even help you see things from another point of view, but seeing a correlation between 6500 year old stories and current science is NOT evidence. you trying to interpret old bible passages and line them up with science that you can make work in your own mind is not much different than someone reading a Nostradamus quatrain and correlating it with something that has already happened and saying, "Look, here's my proof. Nostradamus wrote this 500 years ago and it came true!" It's not even pseudoscience, it's cherry picking facts that lean towards your point of view and claiming you took an objective scientific look at it which is completely false because you already believed in "god". remember, correlation is not the equivalent of causation.

I'm surprised, you asked for scientific evidence and when provided in support of the Bible you dismiss it as "false" because as you said I already believed in "god". That I cherry pick it - so that the "facts... lean towards" my "point of view".

So would you rather want me then to quote the entire Bible here and try to explain them verse by verse so show that each verse is scientific? Or look for all the scientific facts and find them in the Bible? If so, will you not accused of being a "Bible thumper" or an assiduous bible quoter?

Yet what I did is merely show just a few facts out of hundreds - and I was immediately declared as someone who:

who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh." -Astyanax

In any case - do you dispute the evidence presented in the OP? Are they scientific or not? If not which one?

IF scientific - did the Bible contradict them?

If not then where did the Bible writers get their information from? Are you able to grasp this?

What say you?

anyway tx for your input...

edmc2

edit on 11-4-2011 by edmc^2 because: ....

I didn't actually ask you for scientific evidence, I was pointing out that being able to correlate a bible passage with current scientific dogma, said correlation isn't the same as evidence, its closer to coincidence as well as attempted to show that what you claim as scientific evidence just is not.
In fact, I would have given your posts a little more credence were it not for several glaring errors of fact on your part when discussing science. You, however, neglected to address those items and simply quoted my summation and then implied that I labeled you as someone who "who will babble and ramble, distort logic and commonsense to the point of unrecognizability, and contemptuously ignore questions and criticisms in order to peddle his favourite line of tosh." -Astyanax" which never came from me. Do I think I'm correct in my assumptions and you are inciorrect? yes, for the most part. I am not quite arrogant enough to say that I have all of the definitive answers one way or the other though. With that said, I won't be a hypocrite so I'm going to answer your questions-

In any case - do you dispute the evidence presented in the OP? Are they scientific or not? If not which one?

I don't dispute the science. My dispute is that the bible corroborates the science.

IF scientific - did the Bible contradict them?

again, the bible does NOT corroborate science. additionally, when translating from aramaic to greek to latin and then into modern languages over the past 1600 years or so is it possible that portions of these older texts were mistranslated or altered to suit the intended new audience? One example, though not with the bible, of an alteration of christian tradition would be Emperor Constantine moving the date of christmas to coincide with the festival of Sol Invictus. See, the Romans liked their parties, a lot. And they didn't want to give up holidays or feasts for anything so the easiest way to get them to go along with Constantine's new found faith was to simply change the names of Roman festivals to Christian ones. Sorry... totally diverging off topic here!

If not then where did the Bible writers get their information from? Are you able to grasp this?

Just because you don't know the answer, that doesn't mean it must be God the creator in all his glory.(doesn't mean i can't turn out to be wrong, but I've yet to see anything that indicates to ME that this is the case).

What say you?

I say that I grew up in a very Catholic family, was an altar boy and to this day(despite only seeing me in church for weddings or funerals) I can still recite the entire mass from memory. As a child my grandmother and I would spend hours upon hours pouring through the old family bible and learning passages so I am in no way ignorant to Christianity or biased towards religion in general or Catholicism in particular. But unless Christians are really polytheists, I am uncomfortable with a book whos first half is about a vengeful God who orders infanticide, incest, rape and murder and beatings for your wife in order for certain Israelites to prove their devotion to "him" while the 2nd half of the book is Jesus preaching the word of a loving god who forgives all as long as you go to confession.