Explaining Evolution And Why GOD is NOT LIKELY

KnicksFan4Realz

Benchwarmer
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.
 
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..



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!



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.






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.

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.

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.



Do you really want keep going with me on this?

Do you?
 
Last edited:

Paul1355

All Star
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.
 

TunerAddict

Starter
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.
 

Paul1355

All Star
There is more proof of evolution than God.


That's not what atheist and agnostic astronomers say, read the quotes i put when i was talkin with knickfan4realz. After much research they came to a conclusion that a Creator made the most sense and that the Atheist view is a belief of nothing, not my words their words, so dont blast me for sayin this.
 

Paul1355

All Star
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.


first thing this post wasnt intended for you but since u wanted to back up knickfan4realz heres my response.
1) Hitler killed millions of people using gas chambers, torture, starvation every method u can think of back then and you say he's just as good as all of us and should be considered the same as us, law or not?
2) There is a seperation between good and bad or good and evil. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Hussein and his sons, Nero, etc these men are in their own class which everyone refers to them as bad/evil because their actions were with no remorse and no reason to kill innocent people for joy and gratification.
3) Look at our country and look at places in Africa...we created laws becuase we realized what good and bad was and we tried putting an end to the bad as much we could by making laws. Look at places in Africa there is no law, which means that every action is the same as any other action...these places are in chaos..there is genocide every year, innocent villages burnt down, women raped and boys kidnapped and brain washed to kill innocents, because they dont feel its wrong. And your telling me that these choices should have the same consequence as me or you living a peaceful life? Your saying that one man can kill,rape,torture, everything and should deserve the same fate as a person who has never done anything of that nature?
4) Think about its not logical nor does it make sense. if you have a heart you would see its not about belief but about common sense, there is a right and wrong and some have been brainwashed from their youth to not understand that and i pray that they do have a choice one day to make a good decision and realize what and individual is capable of when they dont know right from wrong...because the result is those infamous people i mentioned before..hitler,hussein etc.
5) when you say a person is mature how would you describe that? Maturaty is basically when a person knows the right decision to make in any situation and knowing right from wrong with wrong resulting in a bad decison and bad consequence. You wouldnt know what maturaty is because every action you make is right and therefore you will eventually suffer a consequence because you dont realize that some choices result in nothing positive. You make a choice always thinking your correct just like Hitler and Huessein did and now look at them and what they have accomplished.
6) conclusion, there is a difference and saying there isnt means you are truely lost and have no feelings what so ever. To say that those men i mentioned deserve the same fate as me and you is just like i said that you have no heart and no remorse and no emotion and think every choice you make is the right one becuase in the end you feel it will only benefit yourself. And this is why many people look to Evolution as yourself for an answer, becuase it allows you to do whatever you want to do morally.
 
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?

Well it's easier for me to believe in a book that has no historical, scientific, or prophetic inaccuracies, than to listen to a man who says that nothing can be proven, yet hinges on Universities saying the Bible is not a source of ethos, therefore You cannot believe it, therefore PROVING that your faith, even though you should have none as a person who believes nothing can be proven, rests with University science.

Fact is, Alexander the great did defeat the medes and persians. Fact is, Alexander the great was eventually replaced by his four generals just as the angel in Daniel said would happen. Fact is, those who heeded Jesus warning knew to flee Jerusalem in 66 ce and were saved because of it. Fact, when Job says the earth is a sphere, that held up. When Isaiah said it hangs on nothingness, that held up. When Jehovah said Babylon will be desolate, and not be inhabited thousands of years ago, guess what? THAT HELD UP!

Fact. Mike D'antoni is the Knicks head coach. Fact, Stephon Marubury is in his last year of his current contract. Fact, Isaiah Thomas no longer is president or coach of the Knicks. Fact, Patrick Ewing retired years ago. Fact, Micheal Jackson made the thriller and off the wall albums. Fact Jim Dolan owns the Knicks.

Would a rational person argue the latter portion of what I just wrote and say "none of this can be proven"? No, not a rational person. So then why do so many rational people debate the former part of the facts based on the bible, when they are just as much fact as the latter? Why should I not believe a book that is based on facts, in favor of say scientific books that often need to be revised when former facts are disproven? Why would a rationally thinking person favor a book or theory that will need to be revised due to inaccurasies, over one that never produces such inaccuracies?

Let's just say the bible was not inspired by God, and man really inspired it. Is it safe to assume that their should be quite a few more volumes to it, or at least a few revised changed viewpoints, based on the changing times and discoveries?I mean, even the smartest of smartest scientists have had to do so with their knowledge, you mean to tell me that a book with 40 different writers supposedly inspired by an invisible sky daddy would not also need to be revised at some point? Why would some of the other writers of the other books not disagree with say Job? Cleary the earth being round was not a known fact, It could not be proven then. People disagreed. Why would not one of the earlier or latter writers just happen to disagree with Job? Why does Isaiah say it hangs on nothingness, basically agreeing with Job, when they had never met? Why does the bible, no matter the version or language, have the same theme, since it's full inception? We have scientists whom most of you brag are of the most brilliant minds life has ever put forth basically, who disagree constantly. How could these 40 different writers have so much harmony in relative primitive times compared to ours? Like did Job and Isaiah have free mobile to mobile to keep their stories in line? Text messaging? All this harmony, schemed up?

Would you knowingly marry a woman who you can't seem to ever fully understand, has fibbed quite a bit, and even cheats on you?

Or would you marry the one that who wants you to completely understand her, never lies to you no matter what, and is truly faithful?
 
Last edited:

rady

Administrator
Staff member
Why should I not believe a book that is based on facts, in favor of say scientific books that often need to be revised when former facts are disproven?

If the Bible was based on true facts, it would have been used in school as history book. But it's not. Because it's not supported by evidence. That is why belief is one thing and science is a completely different thing. Stop trying to put an equal between the two. ;)
 
If the Bible was based on true facts, it would have been used in school as history book. But it's not. Because it's not supported by evidence. That is why belief is one thing and science is a completely different thing. Stop trying to put an equal between the two. ;)

Actually the bible is based on facts, problem with it being in schools is if it were in schools, then you'd be promoting religion. And we all know you can't put religion in the schools in this great country... unless of course you mask it and say it's based on science... LIKE EVOLUTION! That is perfectly ok.

And I challenge you to check one of the history books in these schools. Look up the life and demise of Alexander the great. See if in fact it was his army who defeated the medes and persians. See if in fact it was his four generals, and not any of his children or family that finally stood up in place of him as is the custom, upon his demise.

Once you gather this information, see if in fact this was told in prophetic terms before these history books were thought of being put in these schools, and see which book prophesied about it, EXACTLY how it would happen.

Then after you do, ask yourself is the bible based on fact again.
 
Last edited:
Since ya'll don't wanna do it...

I will!

Alexander the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Alexander the great)
Jump to: navigation, search


For other uses, see Alexander the Great (disambiguation).
Alexander the GreatBasileus of Macedon, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt, Shahanshah of Persia
Alexander fighting Persian king Darius III. From Alexander Mosaic, from Pompeii, Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.Reign336-323 BCBornJuly 20, 356 BCBirthplacePella, MacedonDiedJune 10, 323 BC (aged 32)Place of deathBabylonPredecessorPhilip IISuccessorAlexander IVConsortRoxana of Bactria
Stateira of PersiaOffspringAlexander IVFatherPhilip II of MacedonMotherOlympias of Epirus
[show]​
v ? d ? e
Wars of Alexander the Great
Chaeronea (338 BC) ? Thebes (338 BC) ? Granicus (334 BC) ? Miletus (334 BC) ? Halicarnassus (334 BC) ? Issus (333 BC) ? Gordium (333 BC) ? Tyre (332 BC) ? Gaza (332 BC) ? Gaugamela (331 BC) ? Persian Gate (330 BC) ? Sogdian Rock (327 BC) ? Aornos (327 BC) ? Hydaspes (326 BC) ? Malli (325 BC)
Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 20 356 BC ? June 10 323 BC),[2][3] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336?323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.
Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II of Macedon. Philip had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states, and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbors, ALEXANDER SET OUT EAST AGAINST THE Achaemenid Persian Empire, WHICH HE DEFEATED AND OVERTHREW. His conquests including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria, and Mesopotamia, and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Now where would his power eventually go? WOULD THE BIBLE HOLD UP?

Legacy and division of the empire

Main article: Diadochi

Coin of Alexander bearing an Aramaic language inscription.



The Hellenistic world view after Alexander: ancient world map of Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), incorporating information from the campaigns of Alexander and his successors.[27]


After Alexander's death, in 323 BC, the rule of his Empire was given to Alexander's half-brother Philip Arridaeus and Alexander's son Alexander IV. However, since Philip was apparently feeble-minded and the son of Alexander still a baby, two regents were named in Perdiccas (who had received Alexander's ring at his death) and Craterus (who may have been the one mentioned as successor by Alexander), although Perdiccas quickly managed to take sole power.
Perdiccas soon eliminated several of his opponents, killing about 30 (Diodorus Siculus), and at the Partition of Babylon named former generals of Alexander as satraps of the various regions of his Empire. In 321 BC Perdiccas was assassinated by his own troops during his conflict with Ptolemy, leading to the Partition of Triparadisus, in which Antipater was named as the new regent, and the satrapies again shared between the various generals. From that time, Alexander's officers were focused on the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.
Ultimately, the conflict was settled after the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Macedon, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus in Mesopotamia and Persia, and Ptolemy I Soter in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus ruled for a while in Anatolia and Syria but was eventually defeated by the other generals at Ipsus (301 BC). Control over Indian territory passed to Chandragupta Maurya, the first Maurya emperor, who further expanded his dominions after a settlement with Seleucus.


Now let's go to the tail of the tape.. The fictional book the bible says this about a certain King of Greece in the fictional book of Daniel.

Dan 8:3 When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward.4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts kept standing before it, and there was no one doing any delivering out of its hand. And it did according to its will, and it put on great airs.
5 And I, for my part, kept on considering, and, look! there was a male of the goats coming from the sunset upon the surface of the whole earth, and it was not touching the earth. And as regards the he-goat, there was a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 And it kept coming all the way to the ram possessing the two horns, which I had seen standing before the watercourse; and it came running toward it in its powerful rage.
7 And I saw it coming into close touch with the ram, and it began showing bitterness toward it, and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, and there proved to be no power in the ram to stand before it. So it threw it to the earth and trampled it down, and the ram proved to have no deliverer out of its hand.
8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.

TRANSLATION:


DAN 8:20 ?The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me?di?a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the first king. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

DAMMIT! THAT SOUNDS EERILY LIKE IT IS IN THE HISTORY BOOKS! Bible not a book of facts you say?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
first thing this post wasnt intended for you but since u wanted to back up knickfan4realz heres my response.
1) Hitler killed millions of people using gas chambers, torture, starvation every method u can think of back then and you say he's just as good as all of us and should be considered the same as us, law or not?
2) There is a seperation between good and bad or good and evil. Hitler, Stalin, Bin Laden, Hussein and his sons, Nero, etc these men are in their own class which everyone refers to them as bad/evil because their actions were with no remorse and no reason to kill innocent people for joy and gratification.
3) Look at our country and look at places in Africa...we created laws becuase we realized what good and bad was and we tried putting an end to the bad as much we could by making laws. Look at places in Africa there is no law, which means that every action is the same as any other action...these places are in chaos..there is genocide every year, innocent villages burnt down, women raped and boys kidnapped and brain washed to kill innocents, because they dont feel its wrong. And your telling me that these choices should have the same consequence as me or you living a peaceful life? Your saying that one man can kill,rape,torture, everything and should deserve the same fate as a person who has never done anything of that nature?
4) Think about its not logical nor does it make sense. if you have a heart you would see its not about belief but about common sense, there is a right and wrong and some have been brainwashed from their youth to not understand that and i pray that they do have a choice one day to make a good decision and realize what and individual is capable of when they dont know right from wrong...because the result is those infamous people i mentioned before..hitler,hussein etc.
5) when you say a person is mature how would you describe that? Maturaty is basically when a person knows the right decision to make in any situation and knowing right from wrong with wrong resulting in a bad decison and bad consequence. You wouldnt know what maturaty is because every action you make is right and therefore you will eventually suffer a consequence because you dont realize that some choices result in nothing positive. You make a choice always thinking your correct just like Hitler and Huessein did and now look at them and what they have accomplished.
6) conclusion, there is a difference and saying there isnt means you are truely lost and have no feelings what so ever. To say that those men i mentioned deserve the same fate as me and you is just like i said that you have no heart and no remorse and no emotion and think every choice you make is the right one becuase in the end you feel it will only benefit yourself. And this is why many people look to Evolution as yourself for an answer, becuase it allows you to do whatever you want to do morally.

Lol. Your an idiot. You obviously can't grasp the fact that morals are created with the times. Who are we to decide what is right for everyone? Right and wrong change and are not absolutes.

And lol at the actions of no positives. Idiot. There is always two sides. ALWAYS. Lets look at your fascination with Hitler. He killed lots of Jews. Whats positive? How about the current attitude of people that want to prevent such genocides from reoccurring? So it did no good? There are always good and bads to every single occurrence. You're obviously beyond reasoning with. I can't stand to talk to someone who is just so ignorant. YOU are not the decider of right and wrong for other. Just because YOU think something is one way does not mean that it is so. And yes, of course I know that me saying this is almost hypocritical, but that is where belief comes in. I believe this as much as you believe your arrogant, ignorant view. You aren't right for others, but you may be right to yourself. Just remember that, take care of yourself and get off your high horse and stop the preaching. It makes you look like an elitist when you think you can define right and wrong for other people. But hey, you know what they say, ignorance is bliss. Damn you must be in such bliss.
 

Paul1355

All Star
Lol. Your an idiot. You obviously can't grasp the fact that morals are created with the times. Who are we to decide what is right for everyone? Right and wrong change and are not absolutes.

And lol at the actions of no positives. Idiot. There is always two sides. ALWAYS. Lets look at your fascination with Hitler. He killed lots of Jews. Whats positive? How about the current attitude of people that want to prevent such genocides from reoccurring? So it did no good? There are always good and bads to every single occurrence. You're obviously beyond reasoning with. I can't stand to talk to someone who is just so ignorant. YOU are not the decider of right and wrong for other. Just because YOU think something is one way does not mean that it is so. And yes, of course I know that me saying this is almost hypocritical, but that is where belief comes in. I believe this as much as you believe your arrogant, ignorant view. You aren't right for others, but you may be right to yourself. Just remember that, take care of yourself and get off your high horse and stop the preaching. It makes you look like an elitist when you think you can define right and wrong for other people. But hey, you know what they say, ignorance is bliss. Damn you must be in such bliss.

turner you have once again failed to prove an argument...callin me an idot just makes u look like a fool becuase thats the only way u can try to prove a point. And the first thing i bolded that u said goes against everything u said. You said that there isnt a bad and good to eveything its just a choice... and now u said that there is bad and good to everything ALWAYS which means yes u contradicted yourself and proved my point thanks for that. Good one small brain. And copying wut i say and saying it to me by saying im all for myself is again foolish becuase thats wut i said about u when i brought up the fact that atheism makes you want to do what u feel is right morally, its not my belief its yours pal. and that is the truth about Atheism you cant beat around it but ill lay off that for u because i can tell it's making you upset. I never said that every bad doesnt have a good i was talking about events that were bad in every way possible. And saying that the Holocaust was a poistive...WUT!?!?! Yes people do try to stop genocides, with the Holocaust or not people would still try to prevent it moron its murder on a catastrophic scale do u think people are helping in Darfur just because the Holocaust??? NO because genocide is what i said before murder on a catastrophic scale. You ask any man or women from parts of Africa even watch eye witness accounts from people who survived the Holocaust are they gonna say "yes there are positives to it"??? Nothing was positive out of these horrible events! just murder and more murder and i forgot something...more murder. If the Holocaust didnt happen years ago and we still saw a country with genocide do think we'd sit around and say "oh it isnt that bad lets see what happens" NO because that my friend is an evil and wrong decision made by the leader causing the genocide and you for thinking that some good will come out of it.
Saying im arrogant is just u arguing with yourself cuz im not the selfish one. Do you know what us "arrogant" christians do before we go to sleep...we pray and we dont pray for ourselves, we pray for people like you, becuase your blinded by secularism and what the world thinks is right and what you think is right morally. And praying for someone like you, who i dislike completely, proves that my belief is not arrogant nor selfish, yours is. HAH my belief arrogant? u know what arrogant means kid, making claims with overbearing SELF importance, your belief is all about yourself so dont get it twisted when u try knockin on my faith and belief because your only making yourself look like a complete fool. End of discussion.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
I will!

Alexander the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Alexander the great)
Jump to: navigation, search


For other uses, see Alexander the Great (disambiguation).
Alexander the GreatBasileus of Macedon, Hegemon of the Hellenic League, Pharaoh of Egypt, Shahanshah of Persia
Alexander fighting Persian king Darius III. From Alexander Mosaic, from Pompeii, Naples, Museo Archeologico Nazionale.Reign336-323 BCBornJuly 20, 356 BCBirthplacePella, MacedonDiedJune 10, 323 BC (aged 32)Place of deathBabylonPredecessorPhilip IISuccessorAlexander IVConsortRoxana of Bactria
Stateira of PersiaOffspringAlexander IVFatherPhilip II of MacedonMotherOlympias of Epirus
[show]​
vde
Wars of Alexander the Great
Chaeronea (338 BC) – Thebes (338 BC) – Granicus (334 BC) – Miletus (334 BC) – Halicarnassus (334 BC) – Issus (333 BC) – Gordium (333 BC) – Tyre (332 BC) – Gaza (332 BC) – Gaugamela (331 BC) – Persian Gate (330 BC) – Sogdian Rock (327 BC) – Aornos (327 BC) – Hydaspes (326 BC) – Malli (325 BC)
Alexander the Great (Greek: Αλέξανδρος ο Μέγας or Μέγας Aλέξανδρος,[1] Megas Alexandros; July 20 356 BC – June 10 323 BC),[2][3] also known as Alexander III of Macedon (Greek: Αλέξανδρος Γ' ο Μακεδών) was an ancient Greek[4][5] king (basileus) of Macedon (336–323 BC). He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle. By the time of his death, he had conquered most of the world known to the ancient Greeks.
Alexander assumed the kingship of Macedon following the death of his father Philip II of Macedon. Philip had unified[6] most of the city-states of mainland Greece under Macedonian hegemony in a federation called the League of Corinth.[7] After reconfirming Macedonian rule by quashing a rebellion of southern Greek city-states, and staging a short but bloody excursion against Macedon's northern neighbors, ALEXANDER SET OUT EAST AGAINST THE Achaemenid Persian Empire, WHICH HE DEFEATED AND OVERTHREW. His conquests including Anatolia, Syria, Phoenicia, Judea, Gaza, Egypt, Bactria, and Mesopotamia, and extended the boundaries of his own empire as far as Punjab, India.

Now where would his power eventually go? WOULD THE BIBLE HOLD UP?

Legacy and division of the empire

Main article: Diadochi

Coin of Alexander bearing an Aramaic language inscription.



The Hellenistic world view after Alexander: ancient world map of Eratosthenes (276-194 BC), incorporating information from the campaigns of Alexander and his successors.[27]


After Alexander's death, in 323 BC, the rule of his Empire was given to Alexander's half-brother Philip Arridaeus and Alexander's son Alexander IV. However, since Philip was apparently feeble-minded and the son of Alexander still a baby, two regents were named in Perdiccas (who had received Alexander's ring at his death) and Craterus (who may have been the one mentioned as successor by Alexander), although Perdiccas quickly managed to take sole power.
Perdiccas soon eliminated several of his opponents, killing about 30 (Diodorus Siculus), and at the Partition of Babylon named former generals of Alexander as satraps of the various regions of his Empire. In 321 BC Perdiccas was assassinated by his own troops during his conflict with Ptolemy, leading to the Partition of Triparadisus, in which Antipater was named as the new regent, and the satrapies again shared between the various generals. From that time, Alexander's officers were focused on the explicit formation of rival monarchies and territorial states.
Ultimately, the conflict was settled after the Battle of Ipsus in Phrygia in 301 BC. Alexander's empire was divided at first into four major portions: Cassander ruled in Macedon, Lysimachus in Thrace, Seleucus in Mesopotamia and Persia, and Ptolemy I Soter in the Levant and Egypt. Antigonus ruled for a while in Anatolia and Syria but was eventually defeated by the other generals at Ipsus (301 BC). Control over Indian territory passed to Chandragupta Maurya, the first Maurya emperor, who further expanded his dominions after a settlement with Seleucus.


Now let's go to the tail of the tape.. The fictional book the bible says this about a certain King of Greece in the fictional book of Daniel.

Dan 8:3 When I raised my eyes, then I saw, and, look! a ram standing before the watercourse, and it had two horns. And the two horns were tall, but the one was taller than the other, and the taller was the one that came up afterward.4 I saw the ram making thrusts to the west and to the north and to the south, and no wild beasts kept standing before it, and there was no one doing any delivering out of its hand. And it did according to its will, and it put on great airs.
5 And I, for my part, kept on considering, and, look! there was a male of the goats coming from the sunset upon the surface of the whole earth, and it was not touching the earth. And as regards the he-goat, there was a conspicuous horn between its eyes. 6 And it kept coming all the way to the ram possessing the two horns, which I had seen standing before the watercourse; and it came running toward it in its powerful rage.
7 And I saw it coming into close touch with the ram, and it began showing bitterness toward it, and it proceeded to strike down the ram and to break its two horns, and there proved to be no power in the ram to stand before it. So it threw it to the earth and trampled it down, and the ram proved to have no deliverer out of its hand.
8 And the male of the goats, for its part, put on great airs to an extreme; but as soon as it became mighty, the great horn was broken, and there proceeded to come up conspicuously four instead of it, toward the four winds of the heavens.

TRANSLATION:


DAN 8:20 “The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me´di·a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the first king. 22 And that one having been broken, so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

DAMMIT! THAT SOUNDS EERILY LIKE IT IS IN THE HISTORY BOOKS! Bible not a book of facts you say?

1.) The Daniel quotes are about rams and goats. It is up to interpretation as to what it is truly about. Now, if the Bible had actually said "Alexnader the Great's empire would be divided into four" before Alexander the Great existed, then I would agree that would be a true prophecy. But tieing "hairy he-goats" and "rams possessing two horns" to Alexander the Great is a stretch.

2.) It is widely believed the Book of Daniel was written between 200-100 BC. Alexander the Great existed between 356-323 BC. So, the book of Daniel was written after Alexnader the Great existed. It's easy to make prophecies and call them accurate after the events already heppened.


In the early 1500's, Nostradamus' made this prediction:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror... The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city..."

"In the city of York there will be a great collapse, 2 twin brothers torn apart by chaos While the fortress falls the great leader will succumb Third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

Nostradamus must be God. These are accurate prophecies of September 11th. This is also much clearer and easier to interpret than the Book of Daniel quotes you listed.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
That's not what atheist and agnostic astronomers say, read the quotes i put when i was talkin with knickfan4realz. After much research they came to a conclusion that a Creator made the most sense and that the Atheist view is a belief of nothing, not my words their words, so dont blast me for sayin this.

Maybe I missed it, but where are there quotes from the majority of athiest and agnostic astronomers stating the proof of God? If you are referring to the creation of the universe discussion, then you are talking about the Big Bang Theory. Which does not require a creator. Plus, if the universe has a begining and end, and somebody must have created it, then who created the creator? He must of had a beginning and an end?
 

TunerAddict

Starter
turner you have once again failed to prove an argument...callin me an idot just makes u look like a fool becuase thats the only way u can try to prove a point. And the first thing i bolded that u said goes against everything u said. You said that there isnt a bad and good to eveything its just a choice... and now u said that there is bad and good to everything ALWAYS which means yes u contradicted yourself and proved my point thanks for that. Good one small brain. And copying wut i say and saying it to me by saying im all for myself is again foolish becuase thats wut i said about u when i brought up the fact that atheism makes you want to do what u feel is right morally, its not my belief its yours pal. and that is the truth about Atheism you cant beat around it but ill lay off that for u because i can tell it's making you upset. I never said that every bad doesnt have a good i was talking about events that were bad in every way possible. And saying that the Holocaust was a poistive...WUT!?!?! Yes people do try to stop genocides, with the Holocaust or not people would still try to prevent it moron its murder on a catastrophic scale do u think people are helping in Darfur just because the Holocaust??? NO because genocide is what i said before murder on a catastrophic scale. You ask any man or women from parts of Africa even watch eye witness accounts from people who survived the Holocaust are they gonna say "yes there are positives to it"??? Nothing was positive out of these horrible events! just murder and more murder and i forgot something...more murder. If the Holocaust didnt happen years ago and we still saw a country with genocide do think we'd sit around and say "oh it isnt that bad lets see what happens" NO because that my friend is an evil and wrong decision made by the leader causing the genocide and you for thinking that some good will come out of it.
Saying im arrogant is just u arguing with yourself cuz im not the selfish one. Do you know what us "arrogant" christians do before we go to sleep...we pray and we dont pray for ourselves, we pray for people like you, becuase your blinded by secularism and what the world thinks is right and what you think is right morally. And praying for someone like you, who i dislike completely, proves that my belief is not arrogant nor selfish, yours is. HAH my belief arrogant? u know what arrogant means kid, making claims with overbearing SELF importance, your belief is all about yourself so dont get it twisted when u try knockin on my faith and belief because your only making yourself look like a complete fool. End of discussion.

You obviously aren't comprehending my basic statements.

1) I said good and bad depends. Its not absolute. It depends on the individual.

2) I didn't say the Holocaust was good. I said there were two sides to everything, refuting your assumption that there are purely negative events. There are always positive that come from what appear to be purely negative events.
 
1.) The Daniel quotes are about rams and goats. It is up to interpretation as to what it is truly about. Now, if the Bible had actually said "Alexnader the Great's empire would be divided into four" before Alexander the Great existed, then I would agree that would be a true prophecy. But tieing "hairy he-goats" and "rams possessing two horns" to Alexander the Great is a stretch.
But the nastrodamus quote is about fallen sky Kings at 45 degrees, In the city of york(which is where exactly?) and that is perfectly legible to you?
Meanwhile the angel in Daniel leaves no interpretation for us, he explains, READ AGAIN.
DAN 8:20 ?The ram that you saw possessing the two horns [stands for] the kings of Me?di?a and Persia. 21 And the hairy he-goat [stands for] the king of Greece; and as for the great horn that was between its eyes, it [stands for] the FIRST KING(Alexander the great). 22 And that one having been broken(Alexander's death), so that there were four that finally stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from [his] nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

The interpretation in this prophecy sets it apart from Nastrodamus', as I will point out once I reach it.

What other FIRST KING of Greece defeated the medes and persian empire and suddenly died at the height of his power and his four general eventually took over the major parts of his Kingdom? Are you THAT driven to disprove the bible, even in a case you clearly cannot? Listen, if you find another first King of Greece who defeated the Medes and Persians and died suddenly, and his four generals took over his kingdom OTHER THAN ALEX THE GREAT, I will never bring up the bible with you again. But since I know you can't lol...


2.) It is widely believed the Book of Daniel was written between 200-100 BC. Alexander the Great existed between 356-323 BC. So, the book of Daniel was written after Alexnader the Great existed. It's easy to make prophecies and call them accurate after the events already heppened.

Widely believed by whom? It appears that he lived during Nebuchadnezzars time by the writings and Knowledge he has of how things are run during that time. WHAT FACT THAT IS WAS WRITTEN BETWEEN THOSE YEARS DO YOU HAVE? And do you not think the jews would have quickly discredited the book of Daniel if they thought that? I mean they killed Jesus for less than what a false document in their faith would have meant!!! If you have no solid proof, you are choosing to believe what you want out of choice. Funny coming from an I need facts kinda guy...

In the early 1500's, Nostradamus' made this prediction:

"In the year of the new century and nine months, From the sky will come a great King of Terror... The sky will burn at forty-five degrees. Fire approaches the great new city..."

"In the city of York there will be a great collapse, 2 twin brothers torn apart by chaos While the fortress falls the great leader will succumb Third big war will begin when the big city is burning"

Nostradamus must be God. These are accurate prophecies of September 11th. This is also much clearer and easier to interpret than the Book of Daniel quotes you listed.

Now some things jump out right away here. The year of the new century would mean the year of 2000-going into 2k1, would it not? It did not say in the year AFTER the new century. When did the sky burn? And can it burn at 45 degrees? Did fire actually approach the great city, or was a plane driven directly there? What is this great city?

In the city of york there will be a great collapse. Cool. City of York
York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see York (disambiguation).
City of York
An aerial view of York, with York Minster in the centre
Arms of City of York Council
York shown within EnglandCoordinates:
18px-Erioll_world.svg.png
53?57′30″N 1?5′48″W / 53.95833, -1.09667Sovereign stateUnited KingdomConstituent countryEnglandRegionYorkshire and the HumberCeremonial countyNorth YorkshireAdmin HQYork City CentreSettled by Romansas Eboracum c. AD 71Government - TypeUnitary Authority, City - Governing bodyCity of York Council - Leadership:Leader and Executive - Executive:Liberal Democrat - MPs:Hugh Bayley (L)
John Greenway (C)
John Grogan (L)
Anne McIntosh (C)Area - Total105 sq mi (271.94 km?)Population (2005 est / Urban 2006) - Total191,800 (Ranked 74th) - Density1,779.3/sq mi (687/km?) - Ethnicity
(2001 Census)97.8% WhiteTime zoneGreenwich Mean Time (UTC+0) - Summer (DST)British Summer Time (UTC+1)PostcodeYOArea code(s)01904ISO 3166-2GB-YORONS code00FFOS grid referenceSE603517NUTS 3UKE21Website: www.york.gov.ukYork (pronunciation (help?info)) is a historic walled city in North Yorkshire, England, at the confluence of the rivers Ouse and Foss. The city is noted for its rich history, playing an important role throughout much of its existence; it is nearly 2,000 years old.
The city was founded as Eboracum in AD 71 by the Romans and was made one of the two capitals of all Roman Britain.[1] During this period influential historical figures, such as Constantine the Great, became associated with the city. The entire Roman Empire was governed from York for two years by Septimus Severus.[2]
After the Angles moved in, the city was renamed Eoferwic, and served as the capital of the Kingdom of Northumbria.[3] The Vikings captured the city in 866, renaming it J?rv?k, the capital of a wider kingdom of the same name covering much of Northern England. Around the year 1000, the city became known as York.[3]
Richard II wished to make York the capital of England, but before he could effect this he was deposed.[3] After the Wars of the Roses, York housed the Council of the North and was regarded as the capital of the North. It was only after The Restoration that the political importance of the city began to decline [3]. The Province of York is one of the two English ecclesiastical provinces, alongside that of Canterbury.
From 1996, the term City of York describes a unitary authority area which includes rural areas beyond the old city boundaries. The urban area has a population of 137,505, while the entire unitary authority has 184,900 people. Currently, the core of the city within the walls is a major tourist destination, attracting visitors from all over the world.


Other notables, it says third big war will begin. We have fought Iraq and Afganistan twice before in wars? And it says the war will start when the big city is burning. Funny, cuz only the twin towers were on fire that day. The whole big city was not.

Dam... Nastrodamus sure can predict stuff :crossfingers:
 
He must of had a beginning and an end?

Admitedly this is just as tough for even bible believers to grasp as it would for anyone. We all know a begining, and God says he has always been. No matter how he could explain it, we'd never understand that being created and having a definite point in time where existence began for us.

That said, it is much more plausible to believe an intelligent being always existed and created all these other beings of intelligence, rather than a cosmic accident reaping all this intelligent design. Especially when that intelligent being's introduction to mankind is as accurate as the bible is on even minute details.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Admitedly this is just as tough for even bible believers to grasp as it would for anyone. We all know a begining, and God says he has always been. No matter how he could explain it, we'd never understand that being created and having a definite point in time where existence began for us.

That said, it is much more plausible to believe an intelligent being always existed and created all these other beings of intelligence, rather than a cosmic accident reaping all this intelligent design. Especially when that intelligent being's introduction to mankind is as accurate as the bible is on even minute details.

That's your opinion. For you, it's much more plausible to have an intelligent invisible being create everything. A perfect being that created the universe with many flaws and imperfections. One that loves us, is all knowing and all powerful yet does not reveal himself, but punishes us for not loving him.

For me, it's much more plausible for the universe to be random and chaotic. That's how I see nature and the universe as a whole. It is filled with imperfections and is cruel and violent. That humans are just another life form no different than any other lifeform that has struggled to survive. And eventually our time on this planet will end but life will keep going. That is what's happened for billions of years. That is fact. It is also fact that our solar system will be destroyed by our sun when it begins to collapse. This eventually happens to all stars in the universe. Our place in the universe is not unique or special. Humans are just a split-second in time within the cosmic timescale and we created religion to explain the unknown. The more knowledge we gain the less significant and improbable religion becomes.

Just curious. What will the religious people's impression of the universe be if micro-biotic life is discovered in the polar icecaps of Mars? We've already discovered organic compounds there.
 
Last edited:

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Widely believed by whom? It appears that he lived during Nebuchadnezzars time by the writings and Knowledge he has of how things are run during that time. WHAT FACT THAT IS WAS WRITTEN BETWEEN THOSE YEARS DO YOU HAVE? And do you not think the jews would have quickly discredited the book of Daniel if they thought that? I mean they killed Jesus for less than what a false document in their faith would have meant!!! If you have no solid proof, you are choosing to believe what you want out of choice. Funny coming from an I need facts kinda guy...

From Wikipedia:
The dating and authorship of Daniel has been a matter of great debate among Jews and Christians. The traditional view holds that the work was written by a prophet named Daniel who lived during the sixth century BC, whereas many modern Biblical scholars maintain that the book was written or redacted in the mid-second century BC and that most of the predictions of the book refer to events that had already occurred. A third viewpoint places the final editorial work in the fourth century BC.


Now some things jump out right away here. The year of the new century would mean the year of 2000-going into 2k1, would it not? It did not say in the year AFTER the new century. When did the sky burn? And can it burn at 45 degrees? Did fire actually approach the great city, or was a plane driven directly there? What is this great city?
In the city of york there will be a great collapse. Cool. City of York

Actually the new century would begin in the year 2001. The ninth month is September. The planes hit the 45th floor. How many great cities had twin fortresses collpase in September of 2001? And he just happens to get this right with the name York in the great city. Plus, how did he know the Third World War would begin. He wasn't even alive for the first two world wars?


But my point was to show prophecies and their fallacies. I don't believe Nostradamus was a prophet of God. Nor should anybody take the Daniel quotes as accurate prophecies either. Especially ones as ambiguous as those and possibly edited after the events occurred. Hardly profound proof of God. Like I said before, there is more indisputable proof of evolution than of God.
 
Last edited:
Top