Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 297

Thread: Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

  1. #31
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    And lemme ask you this. Has science ever been wrong on what they at a time or two, considered a scientific fact? Have they ever had to revise their thinking on evolution in anyway?

    Now when you answer that, answer this. Has the BIBLE ever had to revise it's thinking on any scientifical matter it states in it, ever? And if you answer no, as you wisely should, then ask, how could those writers get those scientific facts correct without the tools and knowledge that today's scientists have?
    So because science updates it's wrong? If that isn't the biggest load of horse****. That's exactly what makes and SCIENCE SUPERIOR TO RELIGION, any of them.

    The very fact that the bible and all other religious texts have remained stagnant in superstition and stupidity is the reason why most people of faith have lower I.Q's.

    Religion let's not forget..let's take the bible for example...states it is a sin to eat shellfish, the children should be stoned for cursing at their parents, that it is justifiable to kill someone who prays to a different GOD, that slaves should be submissive to their masters, wives to their husbands, rape is only a crime if shes not married, that she should be ostracized when she gets her period.

    If I had to pick a book to give to a child about morality..your vile holy books I'd instruct them were toilet paper and give them something more nurturing.

    But getting back to science. What makes science superior is because it does update, and is adaptable. Human knowledge increases with study, time, debate, experimentation, discovery, research, evidence. The fact that science can be wrong, and CORRECTED later on is it's power and beauty. Sure can be wrong, but it has to be tested, proven, confirmed, re-confirmed. And guess what...mistakes are corrected. Darwin was wrong about heredity because he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of genetics. Which we discovered.

    You cant change one word, syllable, or paragraph in any holy book. Holy books are nothing more than the thoughts
    of early primitive peoples, trying to explain concepts intellectually far beyond their capabilities.

    The bible hasn't even been updated to state that the earth revolves around the sun..it still states the earth is the center of the universe. Still states the earth was created in 7 days...never mind the 4 plus billions years. Has no mention of Cain's wife I might add..still to this day.

    Eventually it is my hope one day religion, is looked at no differently that a children's magic show.

  2. #32
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    So because science updates it's wrong? If that isn't the biggest load of horse****. That's exactly what makes and SCIENCE SUPERIOR TO RELIGION, any of them.

    The very fact that the bible and all other religious texts have remained stagnant in superstition and stupidity is the reason why most people of faith have lower I.Q's.

    Religion let's not forget..let's take the bible for example...states it is a sin to eat shellfish, the children should be stoned for cursing at their parents, that it is justifiable to kill someone who prays to a different GOD, that slaves should be submissive to their masters, wives to their husbands, rape is only a crime if shes not married, that she should be ostracized when she gets her period.

    If I had to pick a book to give to a child about morality..your vile holy books I'd instruct them were toilet paper and give them something more nurturing.

    But getting back to science. What makes science superior is because it does update, and is adaptable. Human knowledge increases with study, time, debate, experimentation, discovery, research, evidence. The fact that science can be wrong, and CORRECTED later on is it's power and beauty. Sure can be wrong, but it has to be tested, proven, confirmed, re-confirmed. And guess what...mistakes are corrected. Darwin was wrong about heredity because he couldn't have possibly had knowledge of genetics. Which we discovered.

    You cant change one word, syllable, or paragraph in any holy book. Holy books are nothing more than the thoughts
    of early primitive peoples, trying to explain concepts intellectually far beyond their capabilities.

    The bible hasn't even been updated to state that the earth revolves around the sun..it still states the earth is the center of the universe. Still states the earth was created in 7 days...never mind the 4 plus billions years. Has no mention of Cain's wife I might add..still to this day.

    Eventually it is my hope one day religion, is looked at no differently that a children's magic show.
    All that said, how is it that the bible is NEVER WRONG ON ANY SCIENTIFIC FACTS IT HAS STATED? HOW COULD THOSE WRITERS WRITE THE THINGS THEY DID AND BE ACCURATE ABOUT IT ALL AND ITS THOUSANDS OF YEARS OLD? AND A FAIRYTALE AT THAT?

    And again, if the bible is nothing more than thoughts, how can the scientific facts and prophecies in them stand up? Matter of fact, answer against these in a new post.
    Last edited by Knicks4lyfe; Jul 17, 2008 at 17:33.

  3. #33
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    No it's not. What you are doing is twisting the definition and spinning it around to suit you.

    Faith- is belief without evidence

    Atheism- believes in no gods, or supernatural forces. Not because we have faith they don't exist, but there is NO EVIDENCE proving GOD or GOD's exist. Atheism deals with reality, practicality, evidence, proof, analysis, and logic. All things against faith itself.

    Your clever english spin tricks are not going to work here.

    Science is not an opinion it's factual. If I felt that there is no gravity I can simply test it's existence by jumping up and down. The theory says with gravity what goes up will come down, I jump up...and come down..I've scientifically proven the theory of gravity as working and provable. And guess what...you don't need a secret magic book or decoder ring to prove this!
    from answers.com

    faith

    (fāth)





    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Click [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] for more free books!


    n.
    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.
    See the first answer for it? Fits what the bible says just fine. See the next answer? Fits what you say. So when I said the faith you speak of is blind faith, then that fits category 2. But the actual faith you live, is based on category 1.

    sorry.

  4. #34
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default 5 Reasons to trust the bible..

    If the bible is only mans thoughts and a fairy tale, how can such sound reasonings such as these come about?

    Reasons to Trust the Bible

    1. Historical Soundness

    It would be hard to trust a book that is found to contain inaccuracies. Imagine reading a modern history book that dated the second world war to the 1800’s or that called the president of the United States a king. Would such inaccuracies not raise questions in your mind about the overall reliability of the book?

    NO ONE has ever successfully challenged the historical accuracy of the Bible. It refers to real people and real events.

    People. Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone [1] discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

    Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone [2], dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David” and “king of Israel.”

    Events. Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,” states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

    Proper titles. There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as “district ruler” and Gallio as “proconsul.” (Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province “beyond the River,” the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province “Beyond the River.”

    Accuracy in seemingly minor details is no small matter. If we can trust the Bible writers in even small details, should that not bolster our confidence in the other things they wrote?

    Reasons to Trust the Bible

    2. Candor and Honesty

    Honesty provides the foundation for trust. A man who has a reputation for honesty may win your trust, but if he lies to you even once, he may lose it.

    THE Bible writers were honest men who wrote with openness of heart. Their candor gives their writing the clear ring of truth.

    Mistakes and shortcomings. The Bible writers openly admitted their own failures and weaknesses. Moses told of a mistake he made that cost him dearly. (Numbers 20:7-13) Asaph explained that for a time he found himself envying the prosperous life of the wicked. (Psalm 73:1-14) Jonah told of his disobedience and the bad attitude he initially had when God showed mercy to repentant sinners. (Jonah 1:1-3; 3:10; 4:1-3) Matthew freely related that he had abandoned Jesus on the night of Jesus’ arrest.—Matthew 26:56.

    The writers of the Hebrew Scriptures laid bare the repeated grumbling and rebellion of their own people. (2 Chronicles 36:15, 16) The writers spared no one, not even the rulers of their nation. (Ezekiel 34:1-10) With similar candor, the letters of the apostles reported the serious problems experienced by individual Christians, including responsible ones, as well as by some congregations in the first century C.E.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 2 Timothy 2:16-18; 4:10.

    Unflattering truth. The Bible writers did not try to gloss over what some might have viewed as embarrassing truth. The first-century Christians frankly acknowledged that they were not admired by the world around them but were looked upon as foolish and ignoble. (1 Corinthians 1:26-29) The writers noted that Jesus’ apostles were seen as “unlettered and ordinary.”—Acts 4:13.

    The Gospel writers did not color the facts in order to cast Jesus in a more favorable light. Rather, they reported honestly that he was born under humble circumstances into a working-class family, that he did not study at the prestigious schools of his day, and that the majority of his listeners rejected his message.—Matthew 27:25; Luke 2:4-7; John 7:15.

    Clearly, the Bible gives ample evidence that it is the product of honest writers. Does their honesty win your trust?


    Reasons to Trust the Bible

    3. Internal Harmony

    Imagine asking 40 men from varied backgrounds to write a book, each writing a section. The writers live in a number of lands and do not all know one another. Some do not know what the others have written. Would you expect a book thus produced to be harmonious?

    THE Bible is such a book. Written under even more unusual conditions than those described above, its internal harmony is nothing less than profound.

    Unique circumstances. The Bible was written over a span of some 1,600 years, from 1513 B.C.E. to about 98 C.E. Many of the approximately 40 writers thus lived centuries apart. Their occupations were varied. Some were fishermen, others were shepherds or kings, and one was a physician.

    A harmonious message. The Bible penmen developed one central theme: the vindication of God’s right to rule mankind and the fulfillment of his purpose by means of his heavenly Kingdom, a world government. That theme is introduced in Genesis, expanded on in the books that follow, and brought to a climax in Revelation.—See “What Is the Bible About?” on page 19.

    Agreement on details. The Bible writers agreed on even minute details, but often this harmony was clearly unintentional. Note an example. The Bible writer John tells us that when a large crowd came to hear Jesus, Jesus specifically asked Philip where to buy some loaves to feed the people. (John 6:1-5) In a parallel account, Luke says that this took place near the city of Bethsaida. Earlier in his book, John happened to have said that Philip was from Bethsaida. (Luke 9:10; John 1:44) So Jesus naturally addressed his question to one of the men who had lived nearby. The details agree—but with an obvious lack of intent to make them harmonious.

    Reasonable differences. There are some differences between certain accounts, but should we not expect this? Suppose a group of people witnessed a crime. If each one mentioned the same details using the same words, would you not suspect collusion? Reasonably, the testimony of each would vary somewhat according to his particular angle of view. So it was with the Bible writers.

    Consider an example. Did Jesus wear a purple garment on the day of his death, as Mark and John report? (Mark 15:17; John 19:2) Or was it scarlet, as Matthew says? (Matthew 27:28) Really, both can be correct. Purple has components of red in it. Depending on the observer’s angle of view, light reflection and background could have subdued certain hues, giving different casts to the garment.

    The harmony of the Bible writers, including their unintentional consistency, further stamps their writings as trustworthy.


    Reasons to Trust the Bible

    4. Scientific Accuracy

    Science has made great strides in modern times. As a result, old theories have given way to new ones. What was once accepted as fact may now be seen as myth. Science textbooks often need revision.

    THE Bible is not a science textbook. Yet, when it comes to scientific matters, the Bible is noteworthy not only for what it says but also for what it does not say.

    Free of unscientific views. Many mistaken beliefs gained wide acceptance in ancient times. Views about the earth ranged from the idea that it was flat to the notion that tangible substances or objects held it aloft. Long before science learned about the spread and prevention of disease, physicians employed some practices that were ineffective at best, lethal at worst. But not once in its more than 1,100 chapters does the Bible endorse any unscientific views or harmful practices.

    Scientifically sound statements. Some 3,500 years ago, the Bible stated that the earth is hanging “upon nothing.” (Job 26:7) In the eighth century B.C.E., Isaiah clearly referred to “the circle [or, sphere] of the earth.” (Isaiah 40:22) A spherical earth held in empty space without any visible or physical means of support—does not that description sound remarkably modern?

    Written about 1500 B.C.E., the Mosaic Law (found in the first five books of the Bible) contained sound laws regarding quarantining of the sick, treatment of dead bodies, and disposal of waste.—Leviticus 13:1-5; Numbers 19:1-13; Deuteronomy 23:13, 14.

    Partly as a result of turning powerful telescopes toward the heavens, scientists have concluded that the universe had a sudden “birth.” Not all scientists like the implications of this explanation. One professor noted: “A universe that began seems to demand a first cause; for who could imagine such an effect without a sufficient cause?” Yet, long before telescopes, the very first verse of the Bible plainly stated: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”—Genesis 1:1.

    Even though it is an ancient book and touches on many subjects, the Bible contains no scientific inaccuracies. Does not such a book merit, at the very least, our consideration?

    Reasons to Trust the Bible

    5. Fulfilled Prophecy

    Imagine a weather forecaster who has a long record of being right—every time. If he predicted rain, would you carry an umbrella?

    THE Bible is filled with predictions, or prophecies. Its record, as documented by history, is clear. Bible prophecy is always right.

    Distinguishing features. Bible prophecies are often specific and have been fulfilled down to the smallest of details. They usually involve matters of great importance and predict the opposite of what those living at the time of the writing might have been expecting.

    An outstanding example. Strategically built astride the Euphrates River, ancient Babylon has been called “the political, religious, and cultural centre of the ancient Orient.” About 732 B.C.E., the prophet Isaiah penned an ominous prophecy—Babylon would fall. Isaiah provided specifics: A leader named “Cyrus” would be the conqueror, the protective waters of the Euphrates would “dry up,” and the city’s gates would “not be shut.” (Isaiah 44:27–45:3) Some 200 years later, on October 5, 539 B.C.E., the prophecy was fulfilled in all its details. Greek historian Herodotus (fifth century B.C.E.) confirmed the manner of Babylon’s fall.

    A bold detail. Isaiah made a further startling prediction regarding Babylon: “She will never be inhabited.” (Isaiah 13:19, 20) To predict permanent desolation for a sprawling city occupying a strategic location was bold indeed. You would normally expect that such a city would be rebuilt if ruined. Although Babylon lingered on for a while after its conquest, Isaiah’s words eventually came true. Today the site of ancient Babylon “is flat, hot, deserted and dusty,” reports Smithsonian magazine.

    It is awesome to contemplate the magnitude of Isaiah’s prophecy. What he foretold would be the equivalent of predicting the exact manner in which a modern city, such as New York or London, would be destroyed 200 years from now and then emphatically stating that it would never again be inhabited. Of course, most remarkable is the fact that Isaiah’s prophecy came true!

    In this series of articles, we have considered some of the evidence that has convinced millions of people that the Bible is trustworthy. They therefore look to it as a reliable guide to direct their steps. Why not learn more about the Bible so that you can decide for yourself whether you too can trust it?

  5. #35
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Originally Posted by Knicks4lyfe
    from answers.com

    faith

    (fāth)





    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Click [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] for more free books!


    n.
    1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
    2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].
    3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
    4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
    5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
    6. A set of principles or beliefs.
    See the first answer for it? Fits what the bible says just fine. See the next answer? Fits what you say. So when I said the faith you speak of is blind faith, then that fits category 2. But the actual faith you live, is based on category 1.

    sorry.
    Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD, OR LOGICAL PROOF HE EXISTS...

    FROM UR OWN DEFINITION.

    That's religion...why don't you look up the definition of proof, evidence, and logic.

  6. #36
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

    NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR GOD, OR LOGICAL PROOF HE EXISTS...

    FROM UR OWN DEFINITION.

    That's religion...why don't you look up the definition of proof, evidence, and logic.

    That's a lie, because there is ample proof that he does exist. And the bible being the main one.

    Again, I have not seen you tackle any of the prophecies. Or disprove even one as not happening. How could these many different writers know this stuff would happen? Jesus existed. He also prophesied. How could those who listened to him have lived if not by paying attention to his words?

    How could the bible have scientific fact that is 100 percent accurate? How would these people know this stuff? How come non of the facts in the bible have been proven wrong? What about historical soundness? How come no one can dispute that about the bible?

    All I hear you say is lies, lies lies, yet all I am seeing in the bible is truth, truth , truth! And to make it worse, you cannot even dispute them! How can they be lies if the truths are indisputable?

  7. #37
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Are you slow or just plain stupid? No one has proven the historical inaccuracies of the bible? The hell have you been..maybe if you read something other than that vile book of bull****, you would have learned something by now.

    Historical soundness of the bible. I'm having a hard time beleiving your intellectually fit to be a functioning human being. I mean I havent heard of this kind of stupidity until I at great length had this discussion with a creationist. Then again I've heard a rant like this before...

    Let's begin shall we; I'll even use your bible against itself. Just to prove what you don't know about it, I'll place the biblical phrases first.

    "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

    You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)"

    A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a ****er Spaniel is a cat.

    The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

    Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung.

    All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

    Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

    So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

    Snakes don't eat dirt.

    There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

    However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

    Camels have split hooves.

    The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

    The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

    He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

    Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

    The earth isn't stationary!

    He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

    After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

    Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

    And there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

    The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?) And yes that's exactly how the idea got started that the EARTH was flat...from religion and it's masses of idiots.

    A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
    A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
    A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
    A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
    A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

    Diseases are not caused by demons, less now you want to dismiss psychology and biology as well.

    Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up... (James 5:14-15).

    Prayer does not cure sickness, or we would have no need for doctors.

    By the way...

    While not received very well by critics or the general public upon its initial release, the Bible has slowly developed a cult following over the years and is currently #13,582 on the Amazon.com bestseller list!

    Keep using bible quotes and stories to prove nothing factual....take you and your fairy tales to Disney..they are into worlds that don't exist and imaginary friends.

  8. #38
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Are you slow or just plain stupid? No one has proven the historical inaccuracies of the bible? The hell have you been..maybe if you read something other than that vile book of bull****, you would have learned something by now.

    Historical soundness of the bible. I'm having a hard time beleiving your intellectually fit to be a functioning human being. I mean I havent heard of this kind of stupidity until I at great length had this discussion with a creationist. Then again I've heard a rant like this before...

    Let's begin shall we; I'll even use your bible against itself. Just to prove what you don't know about it, I'll place the biblical phrases first.

    "These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

    You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)"

    A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a ****er Spaniel is a cat.

    The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

    Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung.

    All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

    Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

    So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

    Snakes don't eat dirt.

    There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

    However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

    Camels have split hooves.

    The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

    The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

    He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

    Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

    The earth isn't stationary!

    He will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

    After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

    Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

    And there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

    The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?) And yes that's exactly how the idea got started that the EARTH was flat...from religion and it's masses of idiots.

    A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
    A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
    A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
    A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
    A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

    Diseases are not caused by demons, less now you want to dismiss psychology and biology as well.

    Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up... (James 5:14-15).

    Prayer does not cure sickness, or we would have no need for doctors.

    By the way...

    While not received very well by critics or the general public upon its initial release, the Bible has slowly developed a cult following over the years and is currently #13,582 on the Amazon.com bestseller list!

    Keep using bible quotes and stories to prove nothing factual....take you and your fairy tales to Disney..they are into worlds that don't exist and imaginary friends.
    Historical soundness as in places and people in time. But I see my posts are largely being ignored by you, because if they were not, you'd know exactly what I meant by it, since I have posted a historical soundness piece in a post already lol. So it is an utter waste of time to even converse with you and your pompous attitude. The world is crumbling around us all, humans are ruining the earth (The bible also prophesied about that as well, humans ruining the earth), and you atheist believe we'll be here evolving for the next billion years.

    But just cuz I can, I will briefly explain what you have missed concerning James 5:14,15.

    That prayer was not speaking of actual physical healing, it speaks of spiritual healing. People can become spiritually sick, and begin to lack faith and such. So no, it does not concern physical healing at all. But I could see why you'd try to jump on that, because with your obvious lack of understanding, this would appear to tilt the debate your way. But no. Wrong again.

    I ask you though, how is it that the book of Daniel can prophesy about Alexander the great and his four general who eventually took over his army after he died, BEFORE he was born? You care to discuss that? How about 66-70 ce in Jerusalem? Care to discuss why all those that fled in 66 ce fled in the first place? How did they know what sign to look for? What about Cyrus the persian? Nah, don't wanna dispute that eh?

  9. #39
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default Response to Knickfan4realz

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    TO PAUL:

    Those scientists you speak of, yes some of them have religion. But at the same time they do not go against scientific facts like evolution, genetics, biology, chemistry, or sociology. You can take the Christian out the Science, but you can't take the Science out of the Christian. As well if you can name some names..that would be helpful in this discussion.

    Their personal conclusions in the spiritual sense yes, they sum it up to GOD as regular everyday persons. But as scientists there is a disconnect...also they don't conclude that as a fact "GOD DID IT"...they all clearly state it's what they believe to be true by their conclusions. At the same time they dare have not said that "GOD DID IT" is factual and truthful. Because every scientist knows for something to be truth it requires evidence, proof. Absence of evidence, is not evidence for "GOD" it's actually still evidence against.

    The Cosmological Argument

    I know it quite well. Hope you don't mind me paraphrazing it. But basically it goes something like....

    "Whatever begins to exist has a cause, the univere began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause".

    That should be in the ballpark of it's definition. Just have to point out this factoid...note that the argument does not say "Everything that exists has a cause", because the logical conclusion would be "GOD must have had a cause as well". Cosmologists agree that when we reverse the expansion of the universe, caused by the Big Bang, we come to what is know as the singularity; a point of infinite density.

    Before the Big Bang, there was no space, matter, energy or time; they each came into existance at the singularity. Physicists understand that this poses a problem, because at the singularity all of physics break down; the leading theory to explain the problem is currently known as String Theory or M Theory.

    The Cosmological Argument then describes the requirements of the cause; the cause must be uncaused, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes. The cause must also be timeless, since it created time. It must also be space-less and immaterial since it created all space and matter. It must also be incredibly powerful, since it is the creator of the whole universe.

    Objections to this argument vary; some say that the universe caused itself. Unfortunately that would mean that the universe would have to exist BEFORE it existed, which is impossible. The other objection falls in line with String Theory, which is the same as the multiple universes theory; our universe was cause by another unseen and undetectable universe in another dimension.

    Not many good arguments have been raised against this one, most tend towards saying that scientists don't know what existed before the Big Bang, or what caused it, so it's unfair to just assume that it was god.

    Then you moved onto the classic "First Cause Argument"

    Everything that exists in our world is the result of some sort of "first cause" which brought about its existence. Therefore, there must have been a force which created the universe. That "first cause" is what we call God.

    This sounds about right to me for a definition of it the new argument your making.

    Like many arguments of this nature, theists make a special pleading to exempt God from their argument. If everything that exists must have a cause, who created God?

    Variations of this argument employ the first law of thermodynamics to imply that God has always existed because the first law of thermodynamics says matter can neither be created nor destroyed. Nice notion, but it still doesn't prove there's a God. It merely suggests there's more for us to understand, and every day scientists get closer to addressing these issues without referencing God or anything supernatural.

    Then you moved onto the second law of thermodynamics, or the argument from improbability.

    The second law of thermodynamics says matter inevitably becomes entropic (spreads out in chaos) and this defies the observation on Earth where we see, things becoming more organized. Therefore God is responsible.

    What is the likelihood that humans would have turned out the way they have? It's improbable that humanity (or any other impressive life form) arbitrarily came into existence.

    Imagine a wind whipping through a warehouse of airplane parts and blowing the pieces around until they form a perfect, functional 747 jet? That's what we are talking about in terms of the likelihood man "just happened" on Earth. A similar story involves monkeys being given typewriters and eventually writing all the works of Shakespeare.

    But here is where you fall apart;

    This argument works because those making these claims deliberately leave out a critical aspect of the story:

    No scientist ever said everything happens randomly or arbitrarily!!!

    How things evolve, change or become something new and different can be explained using processes such as Natural selection.

    This argument ignores glaring facts in the equation.

    The second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system, but the Earth is not a closed system. The entire universe is expanding and entropic. Theists ignore this fact.

    When employing the Argument from Improbability to the concept of evolution, theists also deliberately ignore the process of natural selection, which clearly demonstrates that the evolutionary process is anything but random and arbitrary.

    In any case, even if the Argument from Improbability were true, it wouldn't prove the existence of God.

    Another variation on the Argument from Improbability centers around talking about how "perfect" the Earth, our bodies, the universe, etc. is.

    Yes, if the Earth is so "perfect" how come the majority of it is covered with water and uninhabitable by humans? How come we weren't born with gills? If the universe is so perfect, why are there so many planets that are totally inhospitable to humans? Why doesn't the moon have an atmosphere? The "perfection" spin doesn't work.
    I have responded to you by putting you argument into each paragraph. I then will mention other things that are not about your arguments.

    I dont think you realized that some things you said were actually agreeing with me but ill get on to that later.
    1) You started out going against the scientist saying that they have religion, but i said that they were Atheist and Agnostic..having the same views of you in most ways and not being religious scientist. So whatever their conclusion came out to be is a researched Atheist conclusion, you can't beat around it...these men are more knowledable then me and you and they have looked into the matter so much that there conclusion came to be a Creator. Now you also say that it doesnt mean they are saying "God" did it, one of the men i named sayed in a quote if you read it said "This traces that every living thing has been found from a product of forces they cannot discover, that there are or what i call, Supernatural forces at work which is a scientifically proven fact. And that the Biblical view seems to be the right view.". And i did name some names those are higly regarded Astromoers and Scientist so to deny their claims is basically a biased action. That quote you read was from Agnostic Astronomer Rober Jastrow. So that quote goes against your argument that they didnt say God did it...because the Biblical view means God did it. Also Robert Geisure who i quoted said "Every beginning must have had a Beginner" this goes against Evolution and every other Athiest claim and "Beginner" means a supernatural force or God. Even Einstein proved the Beginning of the Universe with his Theory of Relativity. We have names right there Robert Jastrow, Robert Geisure and even Einstein and later i talk about Atheist Anthony Kenny's statement.

    2)Then you argued against the reversal of time. I said it traces back to Nothing, you said a point of inifite density. Ok what was in that point? Nothing was when you trace everything back the Atheist view is that matter came from Nothing by Nothing just like Atheist Anthony Kenny said. Now as i said simply that the Athiest view: is that No one created something out of nothing, and the Theist view: is that Someone created something out of nothing. Which sounds more likely to have made the universe and earth? No one or Someone? when you trace it back, something was created and the answer is who, because jsut like Atheist Rober Geisure said "every beginning has a beginner."

    3) You then argued the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you wound up agreeing with me that matter will likely end in chaos because thats what the 2nd law states. You do know that the Biblical view has the world ending in chaos. You also said that this Law defies what we see on Earth becoming more organized. Nothing is becoming organized it's the exact opposite! You can see gobal warming destroying glatiers in the Artic...scientist say that these will cause the end of the world eventually in millions of years...i dont beleive it will be that long but it still has the world ending in chaos. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, every natural disaster is becoming more frequent every year. Scientist have made many claims of the disorder of the energy of the universe using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Think about it, if the universe is billions of years old how would all that energy still be here and not in 100% disorder with the universe being destroyed right now? This is were Atheist views dont agree with the law of Thermodynamics. Because if there was NO Beginning...we wouldnt be here discussing this because the universe would have ended a long time ago. The universe is an example of a dying flashlight. It has only a finite amount of energy this means there is an ending to the universe which proves there is a begining and that an Inifinte is impossilbe because the 2nd Law goes against that claim.

    4) Your "whipping wind in a warehosue making a jet" example goes against the Atheist View not the Theistic view. The Atheist view is that a Big Bang "just happened". The Atheist view is that all of a sudden Nothing became something. And the odds of that happening are as if a whipping wind blew around jet parts to make a perfect boeing 747. The Theistic view is there was a Beginner and then he created the Heavens and the Earth,then water then land etc...then created the Human from the Earth. This is not a random event such as the Big Bang and the Atheist view going from Nothing to all of a sudden something, you just contradicted yourself.

    5) Infinfite time is impossible...as i said there was a beginning because if there wasnt a beginning then today would never be here. Your saying that the Universe started with as an infinite??? How does that make sense? And there is NO INIFINITE TIME becuase scientist go against that claim because the 2nd law of thermodyanmics goes against the inifinte time possibility. If the universe is in chaos, it will end, if it can end, it must of began, thus proving the Universe has a beginning. Think about it.

    From there we can beleive that there must have been a Beginner and that the quotes from the Atheists and Agnostics i mentioned support that claim.

    One new things i wanted to throw in Knickfan4realz:
    1)You did not answer my question from my previous post...If there is no God why is their something rather than nothing at all?

    Note: if you say that something has always been here, then the 5 reasons for the Universe having a Beginning disproves that.

  10. #40
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Alright, Knicksfan4lyfe I'll indulge you since you like to keep brining up the issue with Alexander the Great. Let's examine that...and I'm just going to use biblical scripture to prove my point about it being false prophecy which seems to be where the conversation has taken us too at the moment. Fair enough I hope.

    Ezekiel Chapter 13 verse 6
    Ezekiel Chapter 14 verse 9
    Ezekiel Chapter 26 verse 3
    Ezekiel Chapter 29 verse 10
    Ezekiel Chapter 29 verse 17
    Ezekiel Chapter 30 verse 4
    Deuteronomy Chapter 18 verse 20

    All of that what you say about Alexander the Great was a false prophecy. Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Tyre from 585-573 B.C.E. but was unable to take the city. Tyre was conquered in 332 B.C.E. by Alexander but at no time was the city destroyed. It exists to this day. According to the false prophecy found in Ezekiel, Nebuchadnezzar was supposed to completely destroy Tyre, it was never to be rebuilt again, but to remain an eternal ruin, and the King was supposed to get much wealth and loot from the city, making it worth his while.

    Another false prophecy follows in Ezekiel. Nebuchadnezzar did not conquer Tyre, the prophet admits, and neither did he make a thin dime from the attempt.

    Therefore, the prophet proceeds to make another false prophecy, this time proclaiming destruction of Egypt at the King's hands, as a sort of consolation prize for not looting Tyre as was prophesied previously. This looting of Egypt at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar never happened either. The prophet stated that the King would make such a ruin of Egypt that no one would live there for ‘forty years'. This never happened. It is another false prophesy attributed to the prophet after the prophet had just previously made a false prophecy (one false prophecy after another).

    What actually happened...AND THIS IS IMPORTANT... is that Nebuchadnezzar attacked Egypt twice, once in 588 and again in 568 and was luckless both times.

    The prophet THEN admits that Nebuchadnezzar was luckless in his campaign against Tyre, and contrary to what was prophesied, did not loot Tyre. He then promised the ruin of Egypt and all its treasures, and this did not happen either.

    All of the above is just a long false prophecy, in that none of these things happened.

    The Babylonians did not destroy Egypt, the Nile never dried up, there was never a time when Egypt was desolate for forty years, no exile and return of the Egyptians, and no time when there was not a prince over Egypt, among the other things mentioned.

    By editing these false prophecies into the manuscript the scribes effectively discredited the prophet Ezekiel. After making even his first false prophecy Ezekiel was through as a prophet in Israel, according to Deuteronomy. By pressing on and making a second false prophecy things were only made worse.

    What looks even worse than this statement from Deuteronomy is the following statement, from the book of Ezekiel itself. According to Deuteronomy, Ezekiel should have been killed after making that false prophecy about Tyre, and, ironically, Ezekiel concurs.

    So then, according to the book of Ezekiel, if a prophet makes a false prophecy then not only should the prophet be killed, but the person who listens to that prophet as well. Given that the book of Ezekiel is in the canon, and many people insist that the Bible is 'infallible' this would mean that we would have to kill hundreds of millions of church goers, as well as stoning Ezekiel to death.

    Furthermore, according to Ezekiel, God was planning to destroy Ezekiel and that is why Ezekiel made that false prophecy about Tyre. Yahweh just wanted to get rid of that Ezekiel, once and for all, and thus deliberately deceived Ezekiel into making that first false prophecy.

    Once again the prophet Ezekiel is damned by his own mouth for saying 'lying divinations' and then 'expecting God to fulfill the prophecy.' Even worse was then trying to 'daub the wall with whitewash' and cover over the crack. Making excuses about that false prophecy later, and trying to slap a coat of whitewash over the crack (the false prophecy concerning the looting and destruction of Tyre) by then offering Egypt to the Babylonians, for example, is condemned by Ezekiel's own mouth.

    That excuse making and whitewashing of false prophecy makes God especially mad, according to Ezekiel. God would destroy the whitewashing prophets by making that cracked and crumbling wall of false prophecy come down on their heads, write them off, refuse to let them into the land, and utterly destroy them.

    So when you consider the whole messy affair, here you can see the prophet Ezekiel being hoisted high on his own sword and judged by his own judgments. If it really was true that one single individual was responsible for this book, and it is not composed of variant sources, then it truly is the case that the book of Ezekiel is one of the sorriest excuses for a book of prophecy in the entire Bible.

    Other false prophecies are as follows:

    Genesis

    God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17...

    God promises Abram and his descendants all of the land of Canaan. But both history and the bible (Acts 7:5 and Heb.11:13) show that God's promise to Abram was not fulfilled. 13:15, 15:18, 17:8, 28:13-14

    "In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Isaac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

    Deuteronomy

    God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24

    Now let's throw in some from the NT...

    Matthew

    Matthew quotes Jeremiah 31:15, claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod's alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this verse refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (16 and 17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod's massacre. 2:17-18

    Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14

    Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. 24:34

    Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 26:64

    Mark

    Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi (3:1, 4:1, 5). But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance. 1:2

    John

    Verse 33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse 36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Ex.12:46, Num. 9:12 and Ps.34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 and Num.9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments.

    The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse 19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person. 19:33, 36

    Revelation

    John believed that the things that he wrote about would happen soon, within his own lifetime. After nearly 2000 years, believers still believe that "the time is at hand" and that the events described in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3

    Do you really want keep going with me on this?

  11. #41
    Member KnicksFan4Realz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Phoenix,AZ
    Posts
    406
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    You also brought up the Book of Daniel specifically...let's talk about that moron.

    The book of Daniel has become important to Christian theology because the gospel of Mark made constant reference to the book, calling Christ the son of man, and because Mark wrote an apocalypse borrowing the image of the Beast of Daniel's prophecy, which would appear again later in the Christian Apocalypse, the Book of Revelations.

    In chapter 7 of the book, as in chapters 10 and 11, history is described up to the time of Maccabees. History is fine in Daniel until you reach the time of 2nd century, when suddenly the prophecies fall to pieces and become false (which is a pretty good indication of when the book was written). For example, in chapter 11, the historical description is accurate up to about 167 B.C.E.

    Verses 40 to 45 are prophetic, and rather than referring to past events (accurately) the author takes a plunge into future prophecy. According to the prophecy Ptolemy, the ruler of Egypt at the time, would provoke a war and suffer heavy losses, at which time Antiochus would conquer Libya and Ethiopia and then die by the sea shore with no one to save him.

    Immediately follows the scripture describing the furious rise of Michael the enraged Archangel, who is obviously the one responsible for doing in Antiochus (it is suggested by the juxtaposition of this verse against the verse describing the destruction of Antiochus, and in earlier passage where it is hinted that 'the beast' will die, but not by human hands).

    Ptolemy did not begin another war with Antiochus, Antiochus did not proceed to conquer Libya or Ethiopia. Neither did he promptly drop dead at the sea shore, and, as is obvious, neither did the archangel Michael become so provoked by Antiochus defilement of the Jerusalem temple that the end of the world took place. Because the author was accurately describing history up to about 167 B.C.E. and then became a dismal failure from that point on we can be fairly certain that the author wrote the composition around 167.

    Daniel Chapter 11 opens by describing Alexander the Great and the breakup and division of his empire after his death between his four generals. Verses 5 and 6 refer to Ptolemy and Selecus (who is the plotter behind the scenes). The passages then describe the alliance between Ptolemy II (the King of the South - Egypt) and Antiochus II (the King of the North - the Selucid Greeks). Ptolemy gave his daughter Bernice in marriage to Antiochus but they were all brought to ruin by the plotting of Laodice, the mother of Selecus II. Verses 7 and 8 describe the victorious war of Ptolemy III, as power continued to see saw between the two warring empires. In verse 9 , Selecus II, brought to power with the help of his scheming mother, attempted to pay back Egypt in 242 B.C.E. but suffered defeat.

    The sons described in verse 10 are Selecus III and Antiochus III. Verses 11 to 13 describe Antiochus' defeat at the hands of Ptolemy IV at Raphia and the subsequent triumph of Antiochus over the Egyptians at Banias. (It seems these two countries were always taking turns crushing each other on the battlefield.) Revolt in Egypt against Ptolemy V are then related in verse 14 , and then the next Egyptian campaign of Antiochus III is described, culminating in a peace treaty once again sealed by the marriage of Antiochus' daughter to Ptolemy.

    In verses 18 and 19 Antiochus is foiled by the Romans who thwart his plans to capture Asia Minor, and instead Antiochus was forced back, plundering as he went, and he died at Elymais. Selecus IV, his successor sent a tax man into Palestine to sack the treasury of the temple, without success (verse 20).

    And finally starting at verses 21 through 45 we arrive at the time of the Maccabees, and also the time of the notorious 'beast' of prophecy in Daniel, the notorious temple desecrator, the sacrilegious and insulting Antiochus IV . Verses 22 to 24 describe his conniving over the appointment to the office of high priest (and his toppling of Onias III, the high priest) and his campaign of plundering that followed. Verses 25 to 28 describe his campaign of 169 B.C.E. in which he invaded Egypt, and then on his return home to deal with intrigues brewing there, he stopped long enough to sack Jerusalem and plunder the treasury of the temple (a little like robbing the collection plate at a church - it wasn't for nothing that they started calling this guy 'the beast.').

    Verses 29 to 31 describe his next campaign against Egypt and his forced withdrawal by intervention of ships from 'Kittim' (Cyprus). In a fury he attacked Jerusalem again in 167 B.C.E. (apparently being that type of sullen, bad tempered bully who kicks the dog when things don't turn out right. I suppose Jerusalem was easier to sack a second time than taking on those ships from Cyprus.) It was at this time that he set up 'the abomination that causes desolation' in the Jerusalem temple (an altar to heathen gods).

    This act so enraged the Jewish people that it led directly to the Maccabean revolt (the references to persecution and resistance in verses 32 to 35 refer to this movement). Verses 36 to 45 describe his coming doom, for being so downright miserable and godless in all his ways. We can thus date this section of the book pretty accurately to sometime around 167 B.C.E. (it was written during the resistance movement to inspire the resistance fighters).

    Let us do some math. There are a number of possible dates we could work with here. Let us try them all. Cyrus allowed the Jewish people to return in 538 B.C.E. Let us total up the 7 weeks and the 62 weeks, which gives us 483 years. This would bring us up to 55 B.C.E. So if Christ was born in 55 B.C.E. (which would make all the gospel accounts wrong) then at least we have something we can work with in Daniel. Let us try another date. Zerubabbel led the people starting in 521 B.C.E. This brings us to 38 B.C.E. No good.

    Zerubabbel continued to lead until 485. If we use 485, that brings us to 2 B.C.E. That's better. Getting warm. How about we try this one out on Ezra-Nehemiah. (You should note that textual problems with these two manuscripts make dating the periods covered very problematic. For example we are first led to believe that Ezra preceded Nehemiah, and that they were separated by at least two decades, and thus were not contemporaries, while an alternate solution to the textual problems actually places Ezra after Nehemiah, which is a significant difference.)

    One possible date for Nehemiah's rebuilding of the walls is 445 B.C.E. This brings us to 38 C.E. (if we just ignore the division of weeks and total everything up). That's interesting. Another possible date for Nehemiah's work - 404 B.C.E. Even worse. Now we are up to 79 C.E. That can't be right.

  12. #42
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,221
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Other false prophecies are as follows:
    Now, I chose to answer these ones in particular because it is quite clear you don't have the accurate rendering of any of these prophecies, but it would take too much to explain them to a person who wants to believe what they want anyway. So I chose to tackle the easiest to explain for the benefit of enlightening you, and also for me not sitting here likely wasting my time for an hr while what I post will likely fall on deaf ears. But here goes..



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    God says that if Adam eats from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then the day that he does so, he will die. But later Adam eats the forbidden fruit (3:6) and yet lives for another 930 years (5:5). 2:17...
    Now on the surface, it would appear you're right. K. Well this reply will also help in the 7 creation day theory as well. God is timeless. He has always been. Even compared to our time, his time is completely different. One day to God, is as 1 thousand years to us, as evidenced by this scripture here, that you clearly had no Idea was in the bible

    2 peter 3:8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.

    This gives instant credibility to the creative days, and also the time line in which Adam died. This means that the creative days happened NOT in a 24 hr period each day, but thousands of actual human years between the days. And I mean, it should be common sense to people since in the fourth day God makes a division between night and day and seasons. That would mark the time that the 24 hr days actually came into existence. So therefore, Gods creative days could not logically have been 24 hrs since in day 4 that had just began. DUH!

    Now back to Adam. If the 2nd peter 3:8 verse is applied, as it should be since its in the bible, so clearly God wants us to know that, then that is NOT a false Prophecy at all! Adam died in year 930 after sinning, that is 70 years short of a day to Jehovah. So therefore, to GOD, ADAM DID DIE WITHIN THAT SAME DAY.

    NEXT!



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14
    Now on the surface, that would appear that simple, right? Except when you read mathew, you missed mathew 24:3 which says...
    While he was sitting upon the Mount of Olives, the disciples approached him privately, saying: “Tell us, When will these things be, AND WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR PRESENCE and of the conclusion of the system of things?”



    Jesus then runs off what the SIGN will be IN VERSES 4-14. Note that even though he says many diff things, they are all consistent with ONE SIGN, not many SIGNS. So when all of those things happen at one time, that would signal the ONE SIGN of his presence as King. Now, even though the preaching work would begin with him and the apostles and disciples, Jesus said when he died, men would give in to false teachings and reasonings. So clearly, the end would not come at that time of the falling away. PLUS!


    Here is Paul speaking on Jesus actual presence. 1st thess 4:. 15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord.


    This here speaks of a long period of time, since some are said to be dead and have to be raised, while some are alive during Jesus presence as King. That process started Immediately after his death, on down to our very day. Now when his actual presence started is another story. But you did not ask for that. Also further evidence.



    Paul here in Corinthians, speaking of the order of resurrections.



    1st corinthians 15:23 But each one in his own rank: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ DURING HIS PRESENCE. 24 NEXT, THE END when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until [God] has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing.


    So the resurrection of the Holy ones would happen during Jesus actual presence, which was clearly not during Paul's actual time of living, according to his words.

    Now the preaching work in mathew 24:14 is a specific one. It is of the Good news of the Kingdom of God, spoken of in Dan 2:44 and when Jesus said it will be preached in all the inhabited earth. That specific preaching work is being done as Jesus foretold through out the world, and the end of this system is very, very near.






    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Jesus is a false prophet, since he predicts that the end of the world will come within the lifetimes of his disciples. The world of course didn't end then, and according to Ec.1:4 it never will end. 24:34
    Again, it would appear that way on the surface right? Except you are only counting disciples in Jesus day. Clearly from Paul's words I just posted, that selection of his disciples would continue on down to the actual time of Jesus Presence.

    How can they then be one generation you ask,then? Well a generation is a group of people that live to see events take place at the same time. People all don't have to be born within a time frame to be part of a generation. Ages can vary. For instance, if you were around when RUN DMC were big, no matter the age, you were part of the generation that seen rap turn mainstream. whether you were 9 or 90. Im sure you get my drift there, smart guy and all.

    So the fact that Jesus says his disciples wont pass until all the sign of his presence happens simply means as Paul brought out, those who died in union with him will be raised up during his presence, and those who are still alive will witness the sign while alive, and during death, they wont sleep at all, simply be instantly changed in the heavenly arrangement, to all be in union. Read 1 thess 4:15-17 again to get an apt understanding again. If this holds true, if this is done, then Jesus in fact did not false prophesy. Because all of his disciples(generation) will have witnessed the same event,( the sign of his presence ) whether in heaven or earth.

    Now as far as ECC 1:4, glad you brought that up. Remember Mathew 24:3 spoke of an end to the SYSTEM of things. A system is how things are ran. It does not mean the end of the earth itself, but an ending of a system of things within the earth. Just as with the flood in Noahs day. God did not destroy the earth, but he destroyed a vessel within the earth, or system of things.

    God's purpose is for righteous people to live forever on earth. Has always been that way. (psl 37:29) In order to have that take place, he would need to rid the earth of wicked people, and the influences behind them. Why? Because they stand in the way of him fulfilling his purpose for those who do his will.

    So when Ecl 1:4 says that, it is correct. The earth will stand forever. That is the only way righteous people can live forever on it! But the way things are currently within the earth will not. God knows how to destroy the wicked but preserve the righteous. As evidenced by Noah and the 7 souls saved, while the rest of the wicked world was deluged.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Jesus falsely prophesies that the high priest would see his second coming. 26:64
    He was not just speaking to the High priest there, he was speaking to all the men there. Secondly, they would see him at the right hand of God because he had to wait to be put in power. That did not actually signify his presence, because his presence does not begin until God actually MAKES HIM KING. So YOU again have a misunderstanding. The witnesses of him would still be around on earth, to continue the work he started (whole book of acts shows that). So if you are witnessing about someone, they may not actually see the person you witness of, but they certainly still feel the presence of that one in a way. And no human will actually see him coming. That is why his disciples themselves asked for the SIGN of his presence. Why would you need a sign for his presence if everyone will actually SEE him? Clearly it has a deeper meaning than the one on the surface. But I will let you ponder on that one a little bit.

    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Revelation

    John believed that the things that he wrote about would happen soon, within his own lifetime. After nearly 2000 years, believers still believe that "the time is at hand" and that the events described in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3
    How did you gather that John believed this would happen in his lifetime? Lemme show you how John knew this was not true.

    Rev 17:
    Well, on catching sight of her I wondered with great wonderment. 7 And so the angel said to me: “Why is it you wondered? I will tell you the mystery of the woman and of the wild beast that is carrying her and that has the seven heads and the ten horns: 8 The wild beast that you saw was, but is not, and yet is about to ascend out of the abyss, and it is to go off into destruction. And when they see how the wild beast was, but is not, and yet will be present, those who dwell on the earth will wonder admiringly, but their names have not been written upon the scroll of life from the founding of the world.
    9 “Here is where the intelligence that has wisdom comes in: The seven heads mean seven mountains, where the woman sits on top. 10 And there are seven kings: five have fallen, one is, the other has not yet arrived, but when he does arrive he must remain a short while.

    John would clearly have had access to the book of Daniel, and would understand the wild beast in Daniel to mean world powers. (Dan 7:1-6, 17) Also (Dan 8:3-8, 20-22) Also, mountains in the bible have referred to world powers or governments. (Jeremiah 51:24, 25; Dan 2:34, 35, 44, 45) With that Knowledge, when the angel tells him its 7 mountains, and 7 Kings, it would logically mean 7 world powers to him.

    Angel says 5 powers have come (biblically), 1 is, and the other has yet to arrive. The 5 biblical world powers that had fallen were

    Egypt,
    assyria
    Babylon
    Medo persia
    Greece.

    Each of these are mentioned in the bible and in one way or another, have oppressed God's people. The one that is, meaning still in power during Johns time was Rome. Rome was still very much in power when John died, and by the time he got that vision in revelation it was 98 ce. John was near the end of his life, and had no logical hope at all at living when that next world power would appear. As the angel says, One is yet to come (meaning having not come during his lifetime)

    So again, it appears you have overstated your knowledge of what the bible means. If you don't understand the basics of it, then you will never understand it's prophecies the correct way.



    Originally Posted by KnicksFan4Realz
    Do you really want keep going with me on this?
    Do you?
    Last edited by Knicks4lyfe; Jul 18, 2008 at 14:37.

  13. #43
    Veteran Paul1355's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    5,464
    Rep Power
    13

    Default To end the argument

    Knickfan4realz, read my response to your comeback about the Cosmological Argument...answer the last question at the bottom....then explain to me how man knows right from wrong..and how you seperate good and evil. If there is no God then Hitler would be just as all of us. So just do what i ask, answer the last post question and explain to me those things in your own words.

  14. #44
    Veteran TunerAddict's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    2,183
    Rep Power
    8

    Default

    Originally Posted by Paul1355
    Knickfan4realz, read my response to your comeback about the Cosmological Argument...answer the last question at the bottom....then explain to me how man knows right from wrong..and how you seperate good and evil. If there is no God then Hitler would be just as all of us. So just do what i ask, answer the last post question and explain to me those things in your own words.
    Once again you are stuck in a black and white world. There is no such thing as right and wrong. It is all up to the individual. The origination of right and wrong came from people being negatively affected, i.e. lied to, stolen from, killed. These concepts of good and bad actions were created from mans fear and thus laws were created against them. Thus the belief in right and wrong were created when wrong became the things that there were laws against.

    However, aside from this fact, you saying that Hitler wasn't one of us? He was. He justified his actions. Do we agree with them? No. But to him it was the right thing to do just as you and your fellow bible thumper continue on to preach your religion to us because you believe its right to do so, that you are indeed saving us, or perhaps even defending your deity. However, it does not make you right, as there is no universal concept of a right action.

    Lyfe, the bible is not evidence for he last god damn time. Saying "I showed it to you when I quoted the bible" means jack. Its not a credible source. Sorry. Universities don't consider it a source of ethos, thus I cannot look at it as such. Nothing is proven. You're forgetting. You cannot prove anything from the bible. You were no there, you do not have physical evidence, and even if you had been there and had evidence, can we be so certain that you are not mistaken?

    Faith is everything and yet it is nothing. There are no right or wrong answers. Everything is justifiable to someone and there is never a way to 100% prove something. You may have evidence or something that supports it, but for you to claim that you have proof or that something is indeed so, is an extremely arrogant and ignorant statement.

    In conclusion, while I do enjoy to debate my own personal feelings with others about religion and make valid arguments, I find it rather hard to do so when whatever I say is simply either ignored or thought of as ludicrous. The main problem with your sides of the argument is that your views are overly arrogant and become situations of talking down to Realz and myself as though we are children. You look at us as fools or something along that line when I do think the opposite has clearly been proven. Or atleast, we can think it has, but you cannot really measure intelligence, or even define it really. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you should not take something as fact and deny everything against it, the truth is that an open mind, one of understanding and the yearning to learn more is better suited for seeing the world than one that is closed, even though it is certainly much safer and comforting. As men, we are forever left to question everything, and not doing so is denying our own existence.

  15. #45
    Veteran LJ4ptplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Ft. Collins, CO
    Posts
    2,950
    Rep Power
    12

    Default

    There is more proof of evolution than God.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •