Revealed - The TRUE Biblical Geneology

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Don't get mad, not everyone understands Quantum Physics.

Well, you don't understand it either

In fact:

"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman

reply to post by reeferman


For one watch your language, for two Protestants are not Catholics. We're totally different. We do "Communion" to remember Christ. Catholics do something called a "Eucharist" and to them it's a "sacrament". WE drink the wine and eat the cracker to symbolically remember Christ's sacrifice, the Catholics believe it turns literally into His flesh and literally into His blood. Catholics offer their Eucharist to all in the church, Protestants offer it only to believers.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Don't get mad, not everyone understands Quantum Physics.

Well, you don't understand it either

In fact:

"Nobody understands quantum mechanics."

Richard Feynman

What Dr. Feynman said is correct in a total sense, but I was referring to the particular sense that the reality we live in isn't analog, there are indivisible units of time, length, acceleration, and mass.

That is basic Quantum Physics.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The only difference between regular physics and quantum physics is the scale of the objects/variables studied. Forces act differently on the smaller scale of quantum mechanics. But all the variables (mass, time, etc.) you listed concerns regular physics as well. It merely deals with the atomic and sub-atomic realm.

But how it all works is still heavily debated. That's why Feynman was correct when he said nobody understands it...

reply to post by MrXYZ


And I'm not disagreeing with him, merely stating the basics which really no one denies who is learned in Physics. You're arguing about how orange and orange really is.

Forgot to mention, anyone truly interested in quantum physics, this book does a VERY good job at explaining it. It's not one of those airport library "let's dumb it down" books, so if you haven't brushed up on math and basic physics recently...do that before reading Cox's book.

It's also very current, so it gets rid of some of the often quoted old information that has been "debunked" since.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Catholics offer their Eucharist to all in the church, Protestants offer it only to believers.

I don't think that's quite accurate. Catholics don't allow non-Catholics to take Communion in their church, with a few exceptions:

Can a non-Catholic Receive Communion?
The smarty-pants answer is that it happens all the time. There’s no security check at Communion stations. Ushers seldom rack up more than a couple of Communion-line tackles in a long career. So every Sunday just about everyplace, a Lutheran or Presbyterian or Druid sneaks in. Perhaps the person has not read the statement of the U.S. bishops printed in the worship aid about who’s in and who’s out when it comes to Holy Communion. Perhaps they are operating on the theology of their own churches, which can be summed up by saying that once you’re in the water, you’re at the table.At a Catholic Mass Orthodox Christians are officially welcome to receive, but they probably shouldn’t, since their own church sometimes levies a sentence of excommunication for those who receive Communion with us. Polish National Catholics and the Assyrians of the East are likewise welcome, and we can receive the sacraments from them if we are gravely ill. So far, that’s it, with some exceptions.

There are five conditions set down in canon law by which a baptized Christian who is not Roman Catholic can receive with us. Like all church law these conditions are meant to be interpreted through the lens of charity.

Two of these conditions are that the person first

must share our Catholic faith in the meaning of the Eucharist, and they

must lack normal access to a minister of their own faith tradition. Think of the widow of a Catholic at his funeral, or a devout lady who is gravely ill in a nursing home whose minister never visits, the prisoner isolated from the church community, or a soldier who worships at Mass with his or her comrades on the eve of a dangerous mission. In each case the canonical provisions suggest that the desire to receive sometimes trumps our Catholics-only policy.

As for Protestants, the various sects handle it differently.
The Gnostic Scriptures and The Gnostic Church: Ecclesia Gnostica offer it to all comers...

The Gnostic Church is a Christian church and considers itself as a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Ecclesia founded by the Logos and His apostles.

In the Episcopal Church they may approach the altar for a blessing (arms crossed over heart with hands flat against collarbones), but they may not receive the Host. the Episcipalians offer it to those who have been "confirmed" (as early teenagers for those brought up in the faith, but adults can also become "confirmed" if they go through catechism classes and pass the final).

As far as I know, though, there's no "proof" or "ID" or "altar pass" required...if you go up to an altar and hold up your hands they will give you the Eucharist (It's called that in the Episcopal church, too).

Maybe in some of the other (esp. fundie) churches the pastors or deacons or preachers or ministers or whatever-you-want-to-call-them don't offer it to people they don't recognize, though. I wouldn't be surprised.

In any case, blanket statements about "Protestants" such as the quoted one above are incorrect. Each sect has their own way of dealing with it.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
1) We know a global flood never happened.
2) We know that at no point there were only 2 humans.

In short, if you take Genesis literally, you can be easily proven wrong.

Regarding point 1. There is extensive evidence of inundation, from many locations around the world (often from the highest mountains). Dating such an inundation accurately to determine if they were simultaneous is a problem.

Regarding point 2. No, we don't "know" any such thing.

You need to read "The 7 Daughters of Eve" by geneticist Bryan Sykes. It traces the mDNA of all humans back to 7 progenitor females who lived only 50,000 years ago.

This indicated that there was a time when the human race was very close to extinction.

This may have happened several times in human history.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Scientist are NOT arguing, "Which came first, the Sun or the Earth? Death or mankind?" "Did light exist on Earth before the Sun and stars?"

Sorry, maybe some "pseudo scientists" from Oral Roberts University are arguing those things, but no legitimate scientist, with a "real" degree from a "real" school, will.

The Sun is a relatively new star. The material that the Earth is made from came from supernovas of older and long gone stars.

The accretion of material that made up the Earth was lit by starlight before the nuclear processes in the Sun kicked off.

Before the stars, the latent heat of the Big Bang illuminated everything. We see this latent heat as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation these days.

Sounds like light before stars to me.

Originally posted by Iason321
reply to post by BubbaJoe

 

Translated from the Masoretic text (the official Hebrew OT)

None of the original scrolls remain. Each scroll had a life of about 800 years, so from Moses to Jesus, there were only 3 copies required. Copies were also checked mathematically to ensure that they had the correct number of words and also the words in specific locations were unchanged. The scrolls were venerated objects and were housed and handled very carefully. The scrolls used in the Temple at Jerusalem in Jesus time, would have been the most accurate copies available. They also had the Septuagint version which was used in more normal daily use (it was probably the most popular written work in the world at the time).

The Septuagint was a translation of these ancient scrolls into Greek. It is the closest to original Hebrew text (this is supported by the discovery of the content of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were copies of the original Hebrew texts) and was completed 132 years BEFORE Christ.

The Masoretic text was written, piecemeal, about 700 years AFTER Christ died and was first published in its current form in 1427 AD. Hardly the original.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Forgot to mention, anyone truly interested in quantum physics, this book does a VERY good job at explaining it. It's not one of those airport library "let's dumb it down" books, so if you haven't brushed up on math and basic physics recently...do that before reading Cox's book.

It's also very current, so it gets rid of some of the often quoted old information that has been "debunked" since.

Good God, Planck's length and Planck time haven't been debunked, in fact Physicists now know the particles lose locality when Planck's length is altered smaller than 10^-35cm, it's called "non-locality". Seriously, these are accepted in Physics and have been for almost 100 years now.

Quantum Entanglement.

Copenhagen Interpretation.

reply to post by wildtimes


Wild, there are always exceptions to the rule, but it's illogical to use the exceptions to the rule to define the rule. Applications and definitions should remain within the parameters of the general rule.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Scientist are NOT arguing, "Which came first, the Sun or the Earth? Death or mankind?" "Did light exist on Earth before the Sun and stars?"

Sorry, maybe some "pseudo scientists" from Oral Roberts University are arguing those things, but no legitimate scientist, with a "real" degree from a "real" school, will.

The Sun is a relatively new star. The material that the Earth is made from came from supernovas of older and long gone stars.

So is our sun.

The accretion of material that made up the Earth was lit by starlight before the nuclear processes in the Sun kicked off.

Before the stars, the latent heat of the Big Bang illuminated everything. We see this latent heat as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation these days.

Sounds like light before stars to me.

Not on our planet. The sun was forming before the earth was solid.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

According to the text, light was created after the earth. That is bed science and wrong. Light existed before the earth was formed.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Scientist are NOT arguing, "Which came first, the Sun or the Earth? Death or mankind?" "Did light exist on Earth before the Sun and stars?"

Sorry, maybe some "pseudo scientists" from Oral Roberts University are arguing those things, but no legitimate scientist, with a "real" degree from a "real" school, will.

The Sun is a relatively new star. The material that the Earth is made from came from supernovas of older and long gone stars.

So is our sun.

The accretion of material that made up the Earth was lit by starlight before the nuclear processes in the Sun kicked off.

Before the stars, the latent heat of the Big Bang illuminated everything. We see this latent heat as the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation these days.

Sounds like light before stars to me.

Not on our planet. The sun was forming before the earth was solid.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

According to the text, light was created after the earth. That is bed science and wrong. Light existed before the earth was formed.

Firstly, I read the above text as the Earth being formless (not solid like it is now) when light was created and science totally supports this.

Also, the full story (from science) is significantly more complex but also does not disagree with the creation as described in Genesis.

From the point of view of science:

Just after the Big Bang, there was a time when matter began condensing from the hot singularity which was opaque (and also probably, gravitationally, like a black hole). As space expanded, the precursor of matter came into being as "sea" or "soup" of quarks and gluons, which were so highly energized that they remained in a plasma state for some time (note how science terminology seems to agree with the words used in Genesis e.g: "darkness was upon the surface of the deep").

When the expansion of the universe had slowed, the universe became transparent and energy diffused so these quarks and gluons could then begin to combine into baryonic matter and antimatter. At first matter and antimatter interacted (by annihilating) but eventually only matter was left (for some reason).

The left over matter consisted of hydrogen, either as nuclei or deuturium.

This matter began to clump gravitationally and the overall energy level dropped enough to decouple the remaining energy from matter. It is this decoupled energy that created the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation and this occurred about 379,000 years after the Big Bang. Except for this microwave background energy, the universe was dark and light-less as there were no stars yet lit.

The matter continued to clump together and eventually when sufficient mass had clumped, the pressure caused the beginnings of nuclear fusion of hydrogen. This lit the first stars and then there was light in the form that we would call light.

These first stars burnt out & went nova, producing most of the matter that became the Earth, planets & the Sun.

IMHO, you can interpret Genesis in any way you want, but for the writings of someone just out of the stone age (Genesis, written by Moses), they are fairly accurate to modern science.

reply to post by InLightTend


Soooooo, are you even a christian after that long rant about not believing in God's words?
_____________________________________________________________

reply to post by mrmedinet

As individuals it's impossible to know GOD that's why we have the spirit of TRUTH.

Wrong. That's why we have God's PRESERVED WORDS that are INSPIRED in an ENGLISH translation of the Bible. Called the King James version.

Read 1 Samuel chapter 3, the whole chapter, in order to learn HOW to KNOW God....since you clearly do not.

P.s.....you are REQUIRED to KNOW God in order to go to Heaven.....

MATTHEW 7
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never KNEW YOU: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Guess you just said with your own lips your going to Hell huh?

reply to post by InLightTend

I want to thank you for exemplifying my point in so few words. Surely you walk in the footsteps of Jesus with that mentality. A spirit of love that couldn't care less, Beautiful! (im really sorry you got banned and won't be able to respond, wonder what happened?)

Why not try and disprove what he said in that post bud.......Care to give it a try? Or you scared?

reply to post by chr0naut


Oh please.

First off, the universe is older than the earth. We, our solar system is young compared to the Milky Way. Light already existed by the time our solar system was forming.

It's an amazing stretch of the imagination to suggest that all that scientific big bang/quark, Planck, etc.. stuff is described in "In the beginning, God created the heavens and earth...etc."

It's just not in there.

Besides, by the time the Torah/Bible was compiled, Egypt's pyramids were built and Egypt and Sumeria had extensive knowledge of astronomy and math.

Originally posted by 1611KJV
reply to post by InLightTend

 

Soooooo, are you even a christian after that long rant about not believing in God's words?
_____________________________________________________________

That's a good question, one I'll admit I've never given much thought to; that is, naming my belief system for someone else to understand. What is a Christian? Do I believe in Christ? Yes, but not at all in the sense I imagine you do. I don't believe in fear or provoking it in others as a way to assert a superior opinion. But it's clear that you hold few such qualms. I don't believe that someone died so that I may live. I believe Christ is something were all capable of attaining.

I believe that Jesus was a Jew and that the Torah was written in Hebrew and that's how it should be read and understood.

Why not try and disprove what he said in that post bud.......Care to give it a try? Or you scared?

Scared? Not at all. Would you like me to be scared? Afraid of hell? Afraid of your pithy, closed-minded rebuke? Hardly.

I'll debate anything if you'd like, quote it and leave your rebuttal, and well go from there.

reply to post by InLightTend


Don't worry about him, his light was removed for refusing rebuke from men of God speaking sense into his life. It was the third such time, he's been placed in timeout. Pray for him, don't mock him. Bless him, return his hatred with love and compassion. Love conquers all.