'Missing Link' in human evolution found

LJ4ptplay

Starter
So because one does not have the exact answer for something means their way of life is terrible? So you must have ALL the answers, right?

So are you a sheep since you follow others thoughts on evolution? Because you did not come up with the concept.

I didn't say that at all. Your sarcasm throughout this post makes it almost unworthy of any reply. Plus you keep avoiding my questions. But since you avoid the scientific facts that disprove the bible, the only way I can get through to you is by continuing to prove that the statements in the bible are false.


Clearly you have the slightest Idea why any of the books in the Bible were made. But It's weird that you talk as if you do. The Bible is not a science book, but yet and still it has accurate scientific facts in it, long before, as you say, people had any knowledge of those subjects. How can this be, oh great mind of science? If the Bible writers had no knowledge, how could their facts be straight on any of these topics? The earth is a sphere that hangs on nothing, right? Oh yea.. He got that right because a man saw a shadow on the floor ..................... Lucky guess. How about King David speaking of embryo's in psalms? WHO KNEW! King David was a scientist! But you're right, the Bible was written when no one had knowledge of these things.

The earth is not a sphere, it is an ellipsoid. And the earth is not hanging on nothing, it is pulled by gravity. So again, the bible is wrong. Plus the bible says the earth is a circle. It also calls the heavens a circle. So again, the bible is wrong.

I don't know why you make fun of historical facts about how the ancients knew the earth was not flat. It's pretty simple. If poles of equal length in the ground but in different locations on the earth cast different shadow lengths at the same time of day, the earth must be round. It's the only way to explain it. Amazingly, they were able to calculate the circumference of the earth to within 3% by simply pacing the distance between the poles (were over 100 miles apart) and measuring the length of the shadows. It's called geometry. Learn it.

Where did King David speak of embryos? I'm sure the bible is incorrect here as well but I will wait to see.

Im still waiting for the scientific answer to why the uneducated people who listened to Jesus in 70 ce survived the purge of Jerusalem, but millions of others died. How could a book of fables to control the uneducated masses, save their lives? That makes no sense. So I hope the genius of science can answer that for me. Especially since the genius of science can tell us what happened billions of years ago, and into the future! This should be easy!

Unfamiliar with this. Please provide details.
 
I didn't say that at all. Your sarcasm throughout this post makes it almost unworthy of any reply. Plus you keep avoiding my questions. But since you avoid the scientific facts that disprove the bible, the only way I can get through to you is by continuing to prove that the statements in the bible are false.

Not agreeing is diff from avoiding. As best as I can i try to answer any questions you have. If I don't know, I simply say I don't. What specific question are you referring?




The earth is not a sphere, it is an ellipsoid. And the earth is not hanging on nothing, it is pulled by gravity. So again, the bible is wrong. Plus the bible says the earth is a circle. It also calls the heavens a circle. So again, the bible is wrong.

So wait.. You're trying to tell me that the earth does not look like a damn circle from outer space viewpoint? Are you really gonna go there? If I put the earth in front of a friggin 5 year old and ask what shape the earth is, 10 out of 10 will say CIRCLE, ROUND. Try it. I bet you will get similar results. So even if it is technically an elli- whatever you call it, To the avg person, it's a damn circle. And the fact of the matter is, it was not common knowledge in Biblical times that the earth was circular. So the fact that the Bible was correct, lends to my side of the argument, and goes against yours. I simply said, the Bible is right when it deals with science.

If you don't think the earth looks round from the many pics of it we've seen through science, then you cannot be helped.

And as far as the earth hanging on nothing... Again, smart guy like you, this should be child's play. But oh well. can gravity be seen? Can we see, gravity? No, we cannot. It is an invisible force. So therefore, when one takes a look at a pic of earth from an orbit shot.. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ITS A CIRCLE THAT HANGS ON NOTHING SINCE WE CANNOT SEE THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL. I mean.. that ain't hard at all. Also, it says hanging on nothing, and not being pulled by nothing. So you twisted things a bit to try and make your point.

So in summation, From any orbital picture from outer space, the earth would appear to be a circle that hangs on nothing since it's round and gravity cannot be seen for us to know that is why it's stays in place.

Bible 1- Lj-0.





Where did King David speak of embryos? I'm sure the bible is incorrect here as well but I will wait to see.



Unfamiliar with this. Please provide details.

psl 139:14 I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful,
As my soul is very well aware.


15 My bones were not hidden from you
When I was made in secret,
When I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth.


16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.


NWT
 

rady

Administrator
Staff member
16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,

Actually the word "embryo" does not appear in the Bible or at least most of the versions are using the "unformed body" or "unformed substance" phrase.

How about King David speaking of embryo's in psalms? WHO KNEW! King David was a scientist! But you're right, the Bible was written when no one had knowledge of these things.
You know a chicken will develop from the white and the yolk of an egg (the embryo), that doesn't make you a scientist.
 
Prophecy.

“Jehovah Knows How to Deliver People”

David was just one of many worshippers for whom Jehovah provided escape in Bible times. Since David’s time, God has time and again demonstrated the truthfulness of the apostle Peter’s words: “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.” (2 Pet. 2:9) Consider two more examples.

When the mighty Assyrian army invaded Judah and threatened Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C.E., King Hezekiah prayed: “O Jehovah our God, save us . . . that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Jehovah, are God alone.” (Isa. 37:20) Hezekiah’s main concern was God’s name and reputation. Jehovah answered that fervent prayer. In just one night, a single angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians, providing deliverance for Jehovah’s faithful servants.—Isa. 37:32, 36.

Read the prophecies recorded in Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21. Shortly before his death in 33 C.E., Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew what was going to happen to it. He foretold how the Romans would come and build a “fortification with pointed stakes” around Jerusalem and how they would devastate the city, causing great distress. Then he warned his disciples to ‘flee to the mountains’ when they saw the Romans coming against the city and thus save their lives.

If you examine history, you will find that this all came true. In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape. In 70 C.E. the Romans returned, built an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and trapped everyone inside the city. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins,” says The Bible and Archaeology.


So, what scientific explanation will help convince me against actual documented true history?
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Not agreeing is diff from avoiding. As best as I can i try to answer any questions you have. If I don't know, I simply say I don't. What specific question are you referring?

For starters, the fossil record. This alone, regardless of all the other evidence (biology, genetics) completely disprove creationism. Life did not begin all at once 6,000-10,000 years ago. This is wrong. Plain and simple.

So, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world...or anything else for that matter?

One important fact...you drive a car I presume. The gasoline and oil used in your car are called fossil fuels. This is because oil is derived from the compression of decomposing carbon lifeforms hundreds of millions of years ago (dinosaurs, plants and other animals). 6,000-10,000 years is not enough time to complete this process. This scientific fact also disproves creationism. Oil and gas would not exist if creationism were true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel


So wait.. You're trying to tell me that the earth does not look like a damn circle from outer space viewpoint? Are you really gonna go there? If I put the earth in front of a friggin 5 year old and ask what shape the earth is, 10 out of 10 will say CIRCLE, ROUND. Try it. I bet you will get similar results. So even if it is technically an elli- whatever you call it, To the avg person, it's a damn circle. And the fact of the matter is, it was not common knowledge in Biblical times that the earth was circular. So the fact that the Bible was correct, lends to my side of the argument, and goes against yours. I simply said, the Bible is right when it deals with science.

If you don't think the earth looks round from the many pics of it we've seen through science, then you cannot be helped.

And as far as the earth hanging on nothing... Again, smart guy like you, this should be child's play. But oh well. can gravity be seen? Can we see, gravity? No, we cannot. It is an invisible force. So therefore, when one takes a look at a pic of earth from an orbit shot.. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ITS A CIRCLE THAT HANGS ON NOTHING SINCE WE CANNOT SEE THE GRAVITATIONAL PULL. I mean.. that ain't hard at all. Also, it says hanging on nothing, and not being pulled by nothing. So you twisted things a bit to try and make your point.

So in summation, From any orbital picture from outer space, the earth would appear to be a circle that hangs on nothing since it's round and gravity cannot be seen for us to know that is why it's stays in place.

Bible 1- Lj-0.

I've already told you how the ancients knew the earth was round. This is a historical fact. Nothing unique in the bible here.

Also, the Greek philosopher Anaximander thought that the earth was hung upon nothing. He conceived of the earth as suspended on nothing at the center of the sky, which was a hollow sphere surrounding the earth. So the Bible’s reference to the earth hanging on nothing is not unique.

In Job 38:6 god refers to the earth having pedestals or cornerstones. A little contradictory of the earth hanging on nothing.

Also, I believe there is some debate as to the true translation of these bible passages.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html


And besides, like I said before. The earth is not hanging on nothing. It's not being pulled by nothing. Just because you can't see gravity doesn't make it nothing. You can't see the air you breath. Does this mean we breath nothing?

And I don't get what you mean about a view from space. Are you telling me god didn't know what gravity was? Or that the earth wasn't a circle? Wasn't the bible supposed to be inspired by god? Did god just send an image of earth from space and not properly explain what it actually was? I don't get it.

No, it actually sounds more like the ancient interpretations of what the earth and space were. Not something inspired by god.

16 Your eyes saw even the embryo of me,
And in your book all its parts were down in writing,
As regards the days when they were formed
And there was not yet one among them.

Geez. Talk about manipulation. This is the real passage:

your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.


But herein lies the problem with interpreting the bible. Anybody can make it seem the way they want it to. Hence, so many religions.
 
Last edited:

LJ4ptplay

Starter
“Jehovah Knows How to Deliver People”

David was just one of many worshippers for whom Jehovah provided escape in Bible times. Since David’s time, God has time and again demonstrated the truthfulness of the apostle Peter’s words: “Jehovah knows how to deliver people of godly devotion out of trial.” (2 Pet. 2:9) Consider two more examples.

When the mighty Assyrian army invaded Judah and threatened Jerusalem in the eighth century B.C.E., King Hezekiah prayed: “O Jehovah our God, save us . . . that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that you, O Jehovah, are God alone.” (Isa. 37:20) Hezekiah’s main concern was God’s name and reputation. Jehovah answered that fervent prayer. In just one night, a single angel struck down 185,000 Assyrians, providing deliverance for Jehovah’s faithful servants.—Isa. 37:32, 36.

Read the prophecies recorded in Luke 19:41-44; 21:20, 21. Shortly before his death in 33 C.E., Jesus wept over Jerusalem because he knew what was going to happen to it. He foretold how the Romans would come and build a “fortification with pointed stakes” around Jerusalem and how they would devastate the city, causing great distress. Then he warned his disciples to ‘flee to the mountains’ when they saw the Romans coming against the city and thus save their lives.

If you examine history, you will find that this all came true. In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape. In 70 C.E. the Romans returned, built an encircling fence 4.5 miles (7.2 km) long and trapped everyone inside the city. “Jerusalem itself was systematically destroyed and the Temple left in ruins,” says The Bible and Archaeology.


So, what scientific explanation will help convince me against actual documented true history?

First of all Luke was written in the late 90s of the first century or in the early second century. Hardly a fulfilled prophecy.

From wikianswers.com:
We can establish an approximate minimum date for when Luke'sGospel was written, by identifying the sources, since the book must have been written after the books Luke used as sources.

We know that both Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for most of their information about the life of Jesus. Whenever they agree with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, somthing that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "missing block", a short section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. Since we can say that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE, Luke's Gospel must have been written some time later. Internal clues indicate that Luke's Gospel must have been written somewhat later than Matthew's, so we can say that Matthew's Gospel would have been written no ealier than 80 CE, while Luke's Gospel was written no earlier than about 90 CE.

Luke's Gospel show evidence of borrowing material from the works of Josephus, a Jewish military leader and historian. Evidence that it contains material from Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 CE, indicates that it was written some time after this date.

We know that Luke's Gospel was already regarded as a classic of Christian scriptures by the middle of the second century, so we also know that it could not have been written later than the early years of the century.

On the basis of this evidence, we can suggest that the Gospel According to St Luke was probably written in the late 90s of the first century, or quite early in the second century.



Second of all, learn your history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)
 
First of all Luke was written in the late 90s of the first century or in the early second century. Hardly a fulfilled prophecy.

From wikianswers.com:
We can establish an approximate minimum date for when Luke'sGospel was written, by identifying the sources, since the book must have been written after the books Luke used as sources.

We know that both Matthew and Luke relied on Mark's Gospel for most of their information about the life of Jesus. Whenever they agree with Mark, the text is almost identical in Greek, somthing that could not happen unless one Gospel was being copied. We also have the "missing block", a short section of text that was obviously missing from the copy of Mark that Luke was using. Since we can say that Mark's Gospel was written approximately 70 CE, Luke's Gospel must have been written some time later. Internal clues indicate that Luke's Gospel must have been written somewhat later than Matthew's, so we can say that Matthew's Gospel would have been written no ealier than 80 CE, while Luke's Gospel was written no earlier than about 90 CE.

Luke's Gospel show evidence of borrowing material from the works of Josephus, a Jewish military leader and historian. Evidence that it contains material from Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 CE, indicates that it was written some time after this date.

We know that Luke's Gospel was already regarded as a classic of Christian scriptures by the middle of the second century, so we also know that it could not have been written later than the early years of the century.

On the basis of this evidence, we can suggest that the Gospel According to St Luke was probably written in the late 90s of the first century, or quite early in the second century.



Second of all, learn your history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)


first of all, this is heresay of when they THINK Luke"s gospel is diff that you are using as a proof text to make a point. Luke did not simply just copy after other writers, he was a close associate of the apostle Peter who was actually around when Jesus was, who would then be a very credible source.

Also, Josephus speaks of the same with the Christians, verifying the biblical account of them fleeing. And even if this report you put up was true (which it's not) It still does not explain why in the world would the Christians decide to leave almost 3 years earlier than the actual siege? WHY???? Especially if as you say Luke's account was not written in time enough for them to escape the siege.

So basically what you're left with is holes in your theory. Because if Luke's account was written after the siege then there would have been no warning for the Christians to escape 3 years before the siege, which Josephus himself attests to them doing so. A person who was actually around at the time. Then they too would have died,. But they didn't. Why?

Let me remind you of the prophecy again, because you tend to misunderstand them a lot being so in a rush to disprove it. The important date to remember in the prophecy was not 70 CE but 66 ce. Even Josephus reported on it. Look again.

In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander ?suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.? This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus? prophecy to escape.

So again, Luke"s account had to have been around after 70 ce based on this information.


You tried it.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
first of all, this is heresay of when they THINK Luke"s gospel is diff that you are using as a proof text to make a point. Luke did not simply just copy after other writers, he was a close associate of the apostle Peter who was actually around when Jesus was, who would then be a very credible source.

When something is written after another and is exactly the same, word for word in certain spots then it was copied. Much like this quote you keep posting:
In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.” This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus’ prophecy to escape.

These are not your words. You copied and pasted them. It's not that difficult to determine.

When something is written after an event, then it cannot be called a fulfilled prophecy.

Also, like I said before, learn your history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish–Roman_War


Also, Josephus speaks of the same with the Christians, verifying the biblical account of them fleeing. And even if this report you put up was true (which it's not) It still does not explain why in the world would the Christians decide to leave almost 3 years earlier than the actual siege? WHY???? Especially if as you say Luke's account was not written in time enough for them to escape the siege.

So basically what you're left with is holes in your theory. Because if Luke's account was written after the siege then there would have been no warning for the Christians to escape 3 years before the siege, which Josephus himself attests to them doing so. A person who was actually around at the time. Then they too would have died,. But they didn't. Why?

Can you please provide the citation. I believe it is in "The War of the Jews", Book IV. Which page please?

I don't know why I waste my time. I've proven the bible to be wrong about creation. You choose to ignore that. If it's wrong about creation, then how can it be right about the end of the world? When you use these so-called prophecies to back up the prophecy of the end of the world.
 
When something is written after another and is exactly the same, word for word in certain spots then it was copied. Much like this quote you keep posting:
In 66 C.E., 33 years later, the Roman armies attacked Jerusalem. Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander ?suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.? This allowed the Christians who remembered Jesus? prophecy to escape.

These are not your words. You copied and pasted them. It's not that difficult to determine.

When something is written after an event, then it cannot be called a fulfilled prophecy.

Also, like I said before, learn your history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish–Roman_War

So again, if what you say is true that Luke basically copied Josephus story after it happened, why then would the Christians have fled? for what reason would there have been for them to flee after the attack in 66 ce was called off? You can't just stop at saying it's copied without explaining why just one certain group of people would leave without warrant. Jesus was not God's son, nor a prophet, so any foreknowledge that he supposedly had in the Bible is all fictitious. So then why in the world did the people who listened to him escape with their lives? Answer that please. You have yet to even attempt to answer it. Just saying it was copied. why would they flee if there was no warning?

And why do you keep saying learn my history? I know that in 66 ce the romans for whatever reason left the city. We have a roman historian documenting that. Are you now disputing that?




I don't know why I waste my time. I've proven the bible to be wrong about creation. You choose to ignore that. If it's wrong about creation, then how can it be right about the end of the world? When you use these so-called prophecies to back up the prophecy of the end of the world.

The bible is not wrong about creation. Evolution is the one whose story keeps changing to fit it's theories. I wonder why you have no issues with that?

Lets see.

The bible provides what the messiah will accomplish, when he will appear and die. Jesus fulfilled all of them.

Jehovah said Babylon will never be inhabited again some time after the initial destruction in 539 bce. To this day, it"s still uninhabited. A waste land. Even though numerous ones have tried to rebuild it. All that's there is rubble from ancient times.

I believe we went thru the trye prophecy.

The bible gives time line when Jesus will return as King in heaven (1914)

Jehovah said in Isaiah in the time of the end, pure worship of him will stand out compared to all other forms of religion at that time. As it stands today, Jehovah's witnesses are by far and away the most united worshipers in the world. The only faith that preaches the same word world wide, studies the same word world wide on meeting days, and totally agree on doctrine world wide. That's unity beyond anything the world knows. Can't hardly get a household of 5 to maintain unity, yet somehow, 7 million people from all walks of life, pray to the same God, study the same word, preach the same word, and try to live in love and peace as best as imperfect humans can. Why should not believe there is a Jehovah when all of the things he said will happen, happen? Because the strength of numbers in test after test on carbon dating says 10/14 is conclusive? If that works for you, that's fine. But Jehovah is 100 for 100. Now that's strength in numbers.

Jehovah said the righteous will inherit the earth and reside in it forever. In a way he has already made that come true! He has over 7 million people already trying to live up to that prophecy! So why would I think the rest of it won't happen?

I remember one time in an earlier post, you asked if there is a God, why won't he reveal himself to you. Jesus once made a parable about Lazarus and the rich man that can describe what you're going through with that. He mentions to the rich man who asked to warn his brothers of their pending doom, that his brothers had the law and the prophets, if they do not listen to them they basically won't listen to anything. Jehovah is not going to come to you in a dream. YOU HAVE THE WHOLE WRITTEN WORD OF GOD AVAILABLE TO YOU. Try to make use of it objectively. Maybe that will open up some things to you.
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
So again, if what you say is true that Luke basically copied Josephus story after it happened, why then would the Christians have fled? for what reason would there have been for them to flee after the attack in 66 ce was called off? You can't just stop at saying it's copied without explaining why just one certain group of people would leave without warrant. Jesus was not God's son, nor a prophet, so any foreknowledge that he supposedly had in the Bible is all fictitious. So then why in the world did the people who listened to him escape with their lives? Answer that please. You have yet to even attempt to answer it. Just saying it was copied. why would they flee if there was no warning?

And why do you keep saying learn my history? I know that in 66 ce the romans for whatever reason left the city. We have a roman historian documenting that. Are you now disputing that?

Ughh. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. If something is written after an event occurs, it cannot be considered a prophecy. It is null and void.

When I say learn your history, I suggest you know the facts before you make outrageous claims.

- The Romans didn't just call off the attack in 66 for no reason:
A jewish rebellion had started in Jerusalem in 66 because of 60 years of Roman taxation, poverty and class struggles and brutal and unfair punishment to the jews by Romans (many, many unjust crucifications). Troops were sent to restore order and were defeated in an ambush. The army was forced to return and was defeated by one of the leaders of the zealots. The Romans were humiliated by this defeat and began amassing troops. War was inevitible and most Jews prepared for a big war.

- Christians were not the only ones to flee the city in 66:
The pro-Roman king Agrippa II and his sister Berenice fled Jerusalem to Galilee in 66. Many people fled Jerusalem. When it was evident the Romans would return with a larger army many people left, leaving it in the hands of the radicals. Some of those who went away were Jewish Christians. Also in 66, James the Just of Jerusalem (the first Christian bishop) was stoned to death by the Sanhedrin. This act increased the tensions between the Jews and Jewish Christians and led the struggling Jewish-Christian community to begin leaving.


So, let's recap. A rebellion begins. Troops are sent to restore order and are defeated. A larger army is amassed and the people prepare for war. Meanwhile, groups of people fearing for their lives and not supportive of the radical rebellion leave before the war begins.

This is nothing new in history. There are many examples of this throughout history. The only difference is a claimed prophecy written after the events occurred...which makes the prophecy not a prophecy at all. Many Iraqis fled Iraq and became refugees in Syria when we started amassing troops around them. Aybody could write about an influential person claiming to prophesize about the events after they happened.

Plus, I asked you to cite the War of the Jews. I don't have time to read all of Josephus' writings. But since you know history and Josephus so well, could you please show me where he states that ONLY Christians fled Jerusalem because of the prophecy of Jesus.


The bible is not wrong about creation.

Yes, it is. Life did not begin at once 6,000 years ago. This is a fact. I'm sorry, the bible is wrong here.

The fossil evidence is enough to refute that. But you claim every single fossil and every single scientist is wrong.

You also never addressed the fossil fuel queston. You wouldn't be able to drive a car if creationism was correct.

So, let me give you irrefutable evidence that the bible is wrong.

- The oldest known living tree in the world is a spruce tree living in Sweden. It is 9,550 years old. We can determine tree ages by counting tree rings. I have done this many, many times when I was a forester with the US Forest Service. You bore a increment borer into a live tree, extract a core and count the rings. This is irrefutable.

Other evidence is the Bristlecone Pine where I live here in Colorado. These trees live up to 5,000 years old. Dead trees also take forever to decay in the harsh, dry climate of the Rocky Mountains. By coring live trees and taking tree ring samples of dead trees we can overlap the rings (climactic events show up in tree rings and they can be matched with 100% certainty to other trees) and trace back Bristlecone Pine trees to over 14,000 years ago.

So again, I ask you, if the bible is wrong about creation, how canit be right about the end of the world?

Evolution is the one whose story keeps changing to fit it's theories. I wonder why you have no issues with that?

Huh? Please explain. The theory of evolution has remained constant for 150 years. New evidence is constantly found. Not a single piece of evidence ever discovered has contradicted the theory of evolution. Every single piece of evidence discovered has only strengthened evolution. On the other hand, all this evidence seems to keep contradicting creationism. I wonder why?

I also find it funny that a Jehovah's Witness complains about stories being changed. You guys are famous for changing your prophecies. Wasn't the world supposed to end like 60 years ago? Oh wait, wasn't it about 40 years ago...oh wait, NOW you guys understand the bible better and it's coming soon...again.

Ha! What will happen to the JWs in 50 years when the world hasn't ended...again? You guys will probably change your stories again. Someday, maybe 100 years from now, the JWs will go away because people will stop falling for your ever-changing stories. Unlikely though. It is a cult, and as long as people have poor childhoods or feel unloved and unimportant, cults will always exist (that and not being properly educated).


Jehovah said Babylon will never be inhabited again some time after the initial destruction in 539 bce. To this day, it"s still uninhabited. A waste land. Even though numerous ones have tried to rebuild it. All that's there is rubble from ancient times.

I believe we went thru the trye prophecy.

We did go over the Tyre prophecy. Geez. You're still on that one? Just goes to show you how delusional you are. Tyre still exists. It's still here. It's a city of 120,000 people. Here's a picture:
tyremodern.jpg


Here's a better picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyre2009b.JPG

Again, learn your history:

Early History:

The commerce of the ancient world was gathered into the warehouses of Tyre. "Tyrian merchants were the first who ventured to navigate the Mediterranean waters; and they founded their colonies on the coasts and neighbouring islands of the Aegean Sea, in Greece, on the northern coast of Africa, at Carthage and other places, in Sicily and Corsica, in Spain at Tartessus, and even beyond the pillars of Hercules at Gadeira (C?diz)".[12]

In the time of King David (c. 1000 BC), a friendly alliance was entered into between the Kingdoms of Israel and Tyre, which was ruled by Hiram I.

The city of Tyre was particularly known for the production of a rare and extraordinarily expensive sort of purple dye, produced from the murex shellfish, known as Tyrian purple. This color was, in many cultures of ancient times, reserved for the use of royalty, or at least nobility.

It was often attacked by Egypt, besieged by Shalmaneser V, who was assisted by the Phoenicians of the mainland, for five years, and by Nebuchadnezzar (586–573 BC) for thirteen years, without success, although a compromise peace was made in which Tyre paid tribute to the Babylonians. It later fell under the power of the Persians.

In 332 BC, the city was conquered by Alexander the Great, after a siege of seven months in which he built the causeway from the mainland to the island,[13] but it continued to maintain much of its commercial importance until the Christian era. The presence of the causeway affected water currents nearby, causing sediment to build up, making the connection permanent.

In 315 BC, Alexander's former general Antigonus began his own siege of Tyre,[14] taking the city a year later.[15]

In 126 BC, Tyre regained its independence (from the Seleucids)[16] and was allowed to keep much of its independence when the area became a Roman province in 64 BC.[17]

Hardly an uninhabited wasteland. You can't even accept that a city exists. Talk about hopeless.

You know. You can't just make up history and claim it to follow the prophecy. And then close your eyes and plug your ears when someone actually explains reality to you. What the f*ck is going to take? Do I need to buy you a freaking plane ticket to Tyre? Damn! I'm done with you. You are utterly, utterly hopeless.
 
Last edited:

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Yo, shouldn't atheists not give a shit about other religions?

I give a shit about the truth. I give a shit about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones? And the most educated, successful and happiest societies are the least religious (see Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden)? That's not a coincidence.

Normally I wouldn't care that this guy believes life on earth is 6,000 years old. As long as he wasn't harming anyone.

But he goes around knocking on people's doors and attempts to convince people of falsehoods. He is in a cult. Cults typically take advantage of underprivelaged, uneducated people starving for meaning and love in their lives.

Plus, he has children. He teaches his children these falsehoods and tells them the world is going to end soon. This is child abuse. I have friends that had JW parents. They never got a college degree. Because what would be the point if the world is going to end soon? Then when my friend left the JWs, his mother was not allowed to see him anymore (all the signs of a cult).

Educate yourself man. Don't disregard the facts and don't capitulate to superstitions. Apply logic and critical thinking to everything you do. That's all I ask.
 
Last edited:
Ughh. I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say. If something is written after an event occurs, it cannot be considered a prophecy. It is null and void.
Yo. You're not THAT smart guy. You're really kinda avg when it comes to what you think you know. Stop tooting you're horn so much as if you're this ultra intellect lol.

I totally get what you're trying to say. That being said I do not agree with whoever and whatever you posted about Luke's writings being written say what 90 ce? That would have given the Christians no time to be prepared to leave. And being a Jehovah's witness, which the Christians in the 1st century were also, I know that they would not have moved so drastically without input from the written word and the governing body at the time. So this is deeper than you can imagine. Jehovah's people are united. The Christians would have not left based on what any other group was doing at the time. The Christians were not involved in the wars of that day, or the political process of that day, so them leaving was purely independent reasoning. So again, I ask you WHY WOULD THEY LEAVE? Especially if Luke's writings were not around?

When I say learn your history, I suggest you know the facts before you make outrageous claims.

- The Romans didn't just call off the attack in 66 for no reason:
A jewish rebellion had started in Jerusalem in 66 because of 60 years of Roman taxation, poverty and class struggles and brutal and unfair punishment to the jews by Romans (many, many unjust crucifications). Troops were sent to restore order and were defeated in an ambush. The army was forced to return and was defeated by one of the leaders of the zealots. The Romans were humiliated by this defeat and began amassing troops. War was inevitible and most Jews prepared for a big war.
Josephus sad this: Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander ?suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.?

Now If this man was around at that time and he said they retired for no reason, and was working for ROME, what is to debate? Seriously? You're acting as if it's made up. Now I'm sure he had his reason for calling it off, but whatever it was clearly it had to look crazy to Josephus because it was not like he was in danger of losing. The Romans were a world power. Jerusalem was divided and beaten. What they did 3 years later could have been done at the time. Which is probably why Josephus wrote what he did.

- Christians were not the only ones to flee the city in 66:
Maybe them being the only ones was strong. What should have been said was what I wrote up top. They had no reason to leave based on any other group there. It's not like they were liked or in cahootes with any group of people at the time. They were cast offs. So them leaving was purely independent. Better?



So, let's recap. A rebellion begins. Troops are sent to restore order and are defeated. A larger army is amassed and the people prepare for war. Meanwhile, groups of people fearing for their lives and not supportive of the radical rebellion leave before the war begins.
Why would they fear for their lives? Dude called off the first attack. The army left!!!!! They felt they had won. There was no larger army being amassed. Where did you read this? If the army was being amassed How then would people be allowed to leave? That makes no sense. It makes more sense if the army pulled back some and sent for more troops in the initial attack of 66 ce. But since they fled for no reason, that would give anyone who wanted to leave a chance to. But again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, so maybe you have a better explanation?

This is nothing new in history. There are many examples of this throughout history. The only difference is a claimed prophecy written after the events occurred...which makes the prophecy not a prophecy at all. Many Iraqis fled Iraq and became refugees in Syria when we started amassing troops around them. Aybody could write about an influential person claiming to prophesize about the events after they happened.
Lemme put you on a bit about Jehovah's witnesses. They are and have always been a very well organized people. From Moses time, to the early Christian era, and especially today. At no time, would their decisions to make drastic moves come from any other threat of life, or government. They were hated in Jerusalem, stoned and killed, crucified in Rome.. All that. Stayed. Why? Because they had a commission from God to complete. So tell me.. If they are willing to get stoned for their beliefs, why would a general calling off his troops scare them into leaving? Because that is essentially what you are saying. Nowhere did I read a larger army was being amassed during the time they fled for no reason. In fact, it was a completely different general who came the 2nd time. Which hints to a completely different agenda.

People willing to get stoned, flogged, jailed, beaten, crucified but yet flee when an army was called off? Adds up? No. They fled because they remembered Jesus words in Luke. Point blank.






Yes, it is. Life did not begin at once 6,000 years ago. This is a fact. I'm sorry, the bible is wrong here.
The Bible does not hint to life being created at once. What we always discuss is the origin of man. Plant life, animal life, before man. Who knows how long since Jehovah's time frame is diff than ours. But if you would have really been paying attention, instead of just trying to show us your amazing intellect, and how stupid and uneducated we are, you probably would have saw that by now. But you smart people just hate to be wrong.

The fossil evidence is enough to refute that. But you claim every single fossil and every single scientist is wrong.
Im not arguing if live is only 6000 years old guy. Never have. That has never been a Jehovah's witness teaching. Again, what we disagree on is evolution and the origin of man. Not whether all life (animal, plant, human) is only 6k.



You also never addressed the fossil fuel queston. You wouldn't be able to drive a car if creationism was correct.
Honestly never seen this question posed. Please oblige.

So, let me give you irrefutable evidence that the bible is wrong.


- The oldest known living tree in the world is a spruce tree living in Sweden. It is 9,550 years old. We can determine tree ages by counting tree rings. I have done this many, many times when I was a forester with the US Forest Service. You bore a increment borer into a live tree, extract a core and count the rings. This is irrefutable.

Other evidence is the Bristlecone Pine where I live here in Colorado. These trees live up to 5,000 years old. Dead trees also take forever to decay in the harsh, dry climate of the Rocky Mountains. By coring live trees and taking tree ring samples of dead trees we can overlap the rings (climactic events show up in tree rings and they can be matched with 100% certainty to other trees) and trace back Bristlecone Pine trees to over 14,000 years ago.

So again, I ask you, if the bible is wrong about creation, how canit be right about the end of the world?
Again, no one knows how long each day to God was before man. A day to God could have been thousands to us. And he created all other forms of life before mankind was made. So therefore this could have been several thousands of years. Could have. what we do know now is that a day to God is as a 1k to us. But That does not mean it was that way before man.

We are debating whether we're monkey men. And you or science have yet to show any such being.



Huh? Please explain. The theory of evolution has remained constant for 150 years. New evidence is constantly found. Not a single piece of evidence ever discovered has contradicted the theory of evolution. Every single piece of evidence discovered has only strengthened evolution. On the other hand, all this evidence seems to keep contradicting creationism. I wonder why?
This is simply not true. If it were, EVERY SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE. Since they don't, you're beat. If it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be, there would not be a hint of disagreement in the science world. But there is. Why? Cuz the scientists who disagree are stupid and uneducated like Jehovah's witnesses?


I also find it funny that a Jehovah's Witness complains about stories being changed. You guys are famous for changing your prophecies. Wasn't the world supposed to end like 60 years ago? Oh wait, wasn't it about 40 years ago...oh wait, NOW you guys understand the bible better and it's coming soon...again.

Ha! What will happen to the JWs in 50 years when the world hasn't ended...again? You guys will probably change your stories again. Someday, maybe 100 years from now, the JWs will go away because people will stop falling for your ever-changing stories. Unlikely though. It is a cult, and as long as people have poor childhoods or feel unloved and unimportant, cults will always exist (that and not being properly educated).

Actually, I'm not complaining at all. just saying science which in theory only deals with precision, should never have to revise it's basis. Unless of course it's not a perfect science, which then will lead to many questions. And if it's not perfect, why should one trust it? Because of strength of numbers? 10/17 is a good night in the NBA, but if my life depended on it, I don't know..

And secondly, we never change the prophecy, but we have had wrong thoughts on when prophecy will take place, or later revelations have helped to shed light on a point or two we may have misapplied. I'm not ashamed to admit this, because we are not a perfect people. But our misunderstanding does not mean that God's word is tainted or wrong. And the very same thing happened to Christians in Jesus day. He simply corrected them and kept them on the path necessary until the time came for more light to be shed on a subject matter. And that is what Jehovah's people have done today.

Jehovah will not be late. The end will come right on time. But his time. We preach the good news and wait til that time. But the Bible does hint on worldly activities during that time, and if one is paying attn, we been in that time for quite awhile. And it's just getting worse and worse. Won't be much longer, and certainly not 50 or 60 years.

We did go over the Tyre prophecy. Geez. You're still on that one? Just goes to show you how delusional you are. Tyre still exists. It's still here. It's a city of 120,000 people. Here's a picture:
tyremodern.jpg


Here's a better picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tyre2009b.JPG

Again, learn your history:



Hardly an uninhabited wasteland. You can't even accept that a city exists. Talk about hopeless.

You know. You can't just make up history and claim it to follow the prophecy. And then close your eyes and plug your ears when someone actually explains reality to you. What the f*ck is going to take? Do I need to buy you a freaking plane ticket to Tyre? Damn! I'm done with you. You are utterly, utterly hopeless.

Actually, you should be done with yourself.

Tyre still exists, and the prophecy never said it wouldn't. It said it would become a drying yard for dragnets. That after being a very powerful city commercially in the time of the prophecy. And they had a pretty good navy as well. Even gave Alex the great a fight. Right now, Tyre is not named Tyre, and it is basically a seaport (which in biblical times would have been a drying yard for dragnets.)

You just proved my point. It only has 120 people, and still does business in its seaport. drying yard for dragnets.

The uninhabitable waste land I referred to, was the place where ancient Babylon now sits. Jehovah said no arab will pitch a tent there. Meaning it will never fully be inhabited again. Now since you are the one famous for posting pictures and videos, please, help us out and post some recent pics and videos of what ancient Babylon now looks like. Because I'm pretty sure the last time I seen pics of it, it was a desert in ruins that many have tried to resurrect and have not. Including sadaam once.

Didn't your teachers say pay attn to the board in class? Or did you miss that part getting that grand education of yours? come on smart guy... follow along properly. Tyre and Babylon, two diff outcomes. Keep this up we'll have to get the dunce cap out and put you in the corner!
 
I give a shit about the truth. I give a shit about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones? And the most educated, successful and happiest societies are the least religious (see Holland, Finland, Norway, Sweden)? That's not a coincidence.
Do you really care about the truth, or just being right at all cost because you're the smartest man alive?

Jehovah's people are educated, successful and happier than you can know. Being religious does not have to rob you of these things. But on the flip side, how happy can one be in this world? what is happy? What is successful?

Normally I wouldn't care that this guy believes life on earth is 6,000 years old. As long as he wasn't harming anyone.

But he goes around knocking on people's doors and attempts to convince people of falsehoods. He is in a cult. Cults typically take advantage of underprivelaged, uneducated people starving for meaning and love in their lives.
You sound silly. Ask around if anyone in your neighborhood thinks Jehovah's witnesses are harming people. I'm positive you will get the very opposite opinion. And for a so called smart guy, you are badly misinformed on a lot of things. Which makes me question how smart you really are. I work with a guy who hates Jehovah's witnesses, but has at least done the necessary research to find out that we are most certainly not a cult lol. Geez. You just like to hear yourself talk I guess. if we're not a cult, and you say we are, who is the uneducated one here?



Plus, he has children. He teaches his children these falsehoods and tells them the world is going to end soon. This is child abuse. I have friends that had JW parents. They never got a college degree. Because what would be the point if the world is going to end soon? Then when my friend left the JWs, his mother was not allowed to see him anymore (all the signs of a cult).
Wait a minute. You teach people that we come from monkeys and they aint found 1 apeman yet. But I guess that's not child abuse? You're foolish.

There are lawyer's, Dr.s, dentists, scientists, that are also Jehovah's witnesses. I'm married to a lawyer. I'm sure they went to college (I was there when my wife graduated) so your friends not going to college was a decision they made, not one that JW's told him to make. However, the society will guard against secular education in place of Education and preaching the word of God. The latter is much more important and has life saving prospects. while being successful in this world for a few short years will get you nowhere with God.

But you have to work to support yourself and family. Jehovah knows this better than we do. And to get a job you likely need some college education in this day and age. Unless you have a trade. What your friends should have told you was that Pursuit of secular education that will get in the way of your worship to God is what is guarded against. And they will implore you to pursue a very active course in serving God (Pioneering which entails some 70 hrs a month of active door to door work) or working where the need is great (places where the Christian activity needs to be built up more regularly) If one was to pursue these goals, They would likely not be able to handle a very demanding job (Dr, lawyer, etc) And those are the jobs that people in college usually try to aim for. Big money jobs mean spending big time away from worship, which could then dull a persons senses to what is most important, serving Jehovah. That is what your friends SHOULD have expressed. But since they are no longer in the truth, they likely resent it, which means they probably just wanna shed a bad light on things.

And if their mom can no longer associate with them, it is because they were disfellowshipped from the organization, meaning they no longer wanted to serve Jehovah. The first law in serving Jehovah is loving Jehovah more than yourself, and even your family. After all he loved us enough to give life, and send his son to die for us so that we can regain it. And it is a loving provision in two ways:

a) it keeps the congregation clean from would be defilers. Jehovah likes pure, clean worship. If one is defiling himself and using his name, it would put a negative light on his name, and the rest of the people trying to live right. And it may entice others to try and do the same. If the defiler is removed, then it keeps the uncleanliness from the congregation. If the defiler is never removed, then it would be ok to keep transgressing. Which Jehovah certainly does not approve of.

b) hopefully it shames the transgressor. No one becomes a Jehovah's witness without proper biblical knowledge and an appreciation for him. Sometimes people get caught up and slip up. They then possibly feel maybe God wont take them back, or that they are not good enough because they made some mistakes. If a person truly loves God, he will know first that Jehovah is the most loving and forgiving being in existence, and shame to offend him knowing how forgiving he is will drive a person who loves God to come back. Especially knowing that he has friends and family that are all hoping he does return to God. But if the friends and family just keeps talking to him as if he is still serving God, then what recourse would he have to return? And what does that say about the people still associating with a known transgressor, who has turned his back on the God they are supposed to love more than themselves? Is that person showing God they put him first? No.

And also, she is still the mom. So she can associate with him on a basis of family (say emergency, grandkids, etc) But she just should always keep in mind this person left Jehovah. Even God associated on a limited basis with those who left him (Job chapters 1 and 2) But eventually, those beings were disfellowshipped. So if it applies to Jehovah, why would it not apply to his subjects?




Educate yourself man. Don't disregard the facts and don't capitulate to superstitions. Apply logic and critical thinking to everything you do. That's all I ask.
:)
 

StreetDreams21

I got Soul
I give a shit about the truth. I give a shit about educating people on the facts. Ever notice how the most uneducated societies (and typically the least happiest) are the most religious ones?

I thought that statistically, the happiest people in the world were Buddhist monks?

"According to a 2005 editorial, published in the British Medical Journal and authored by Dr. Tony Delamothe, research done in Mexico, Ghana, Sweden, the U.S. and the U.K. shows that individuals typically get richer during their lifetimes, but not happier. It is family, social and community networks that bring joy to one's life, according to Delamothe."

Found this quote. Wouldn't a role in a religious community (ex: member of the church or a priest yourself) count as a social/community network?
 

LJ4ptplay

Starter
Yo. You're not THAT smart guy. You're really kinda avg when it comes to what you think you know. Stop tooting you're horn so much as if you're this ultra intellect lol.

I totally get what you're trying to say. That being said I do not agree with whoever and whatever you posted about Luke's writings being written say what 90 ce? That would have given the Christians no time to be prepared to leave. And being a Jehovah's witness, which the Christians in the 1st century were also, I know that they would not have moved so drastically without input from the written word and the governing body at the time. So this is deeper than you can imagine. Jehovah's people are united. The Christians would have not left based on what any other group was doing at the time. The Christians were not involved in the wars of that day, or the political process of that day, so them leaving was purely independent reasoning. So again, I ask you WHY WOULD THEY LEAVE? Especially if Luke's writings were not around?

I've never stated that I was an "ultra intellect" or "tooted my horn" as you say. I don't know where you get that from.

Why would they leave you ask? Geez. I explained that in the previous post. There was a war coming. Many people left. Jews and Christians. Why is that hard for you to understand? People leave when they know a war is coming. Even King Agrippa left.

Wikipedia and this website were my sources:
http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar03.html


Are you allowed to read the true history? Since you mentioned in the next post that you must stay away from secular education.


Josephus sad this: Then, according to Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman commander “suddenly called off his men, abandoned hope though he had suffered no reverse, and flying in the face of all reason retired from the City.”

Now If this man was around at that time and he said they retired for no reason, and was working for ROME, what is to debate? Seriously? You're acting as if it's made up. Now I'm sure he had his reason for calling it off, but whatever it was clearly it had to look crazy to Josephus because it was not like he was in danger of losing. The Romans were a world power. Jerusalem was divided and beaten. What they did 3 years later could have been done at the time. Which is probably why Josephus wrote what he did.

I went through all 20 books of the Antiquities of the Jews and all 7 books of the War of the Jews. I did a search for that quote and parts of that quote to make sure, and did not get any results. When I do a search for that quote in Google, many religious websites come up. It's obvious you copied and pasted this from a creationist website.

So yes, at this point it looks as if that quote was made up. Religious websites are well known for manilpualting, misquoting and sometimes just flat out lying. It was not written by Josephus. Maybe some religious author read Josephus' work and summarized what he thought, but I can't find it. Maybe it's in a different book. If you could please cite it and provide the link, I would appreciate it, for I would like to read this for myself.

Plus, in wikipedia and in the other link I provided you, it explains what happened in 66. There is no mention in any history reference that I can find that suggests the Romans just left for no reason.

Which leads me to ask the question again. Are you allowed to read real history books or are they forbidden? Because you seem to be only using creationist websites and making up your own history to match prophecies.


Why would they fear for their lives? Dude called off the first attack. The army left!!!!! They felt they had won. There was no larger army being amassed. Where did you read this? If the army was being amassed How then would people be allowed to leave? That makes no sense. It makes more sense if the army pulled back some and sent for more troops in the initial attack of 66 ce. But since they fled for no reason, that would give anyone who wanted to leave a chance to. But again, I'm not nearly as smart as you, so maybe you have a better explanation?!

Again, this is wrong. They didn't just flee for no reason. They were ambushed, defeated and humiliated by the jews. Please read your history. I don't have time to give you a proper freaking history lesson. Stop with the creationists websites...please!

They feared for their lives because everybody knew the Romans were returning. In response to the humiliating defeat in Jerusalem in 66, the Romans started destroying and conquering every city on there way to Jerusalem and crushing the Jewish resistance north of Jerusalem and working their way southward, crucifying 500 people a day...and the Christians weren't supposed to fear for their lives?


Lemme put you on a bit about Jehovah's witnesses. They are and have always been a very well organized people. From Moses time, to the early Christian era, and especially today. At no time, would their decisions to make drastic moves come from any other threat of life, or government. They were hated in Jerusalem, stoned and killed, crucified in Rome.. All that. Stayed. Why? Because they had a commission from God to complete. So tell me.. If they are willing to get stoned for their beliefs, why would a general calling off his troops scare them into leaving? Because that is essentially what you are saying. Nowhere did I read a larger army was being amassed during the time they fled for no reason. In fact, it was a completely different general who came the 2nd time. Which hints to a completely different agenda.

People willing to get stoned, flogged, jailed, beaten, crucified but yet flee when an army was called off? Adds up? No. They fled because they remembered Jesus words in Luke. Point blank.

Do you know why a second general was placed? Vespian returned because the emporer Nero had committed suicide. He placed his son Titus in charge.

So if the Christians fled because of Jesus' prophecy, how come many non-christians fled as well? There were many jews that fled. King Agrippa fled as well. Jews were jailed, beaten and crucified as well.

Fact is, you have no proof at all. None. You can't just say they fled because of a prophecy written after the event actually happened. And you can't change history to make it seem like a prophecy was fulfilled.

Oh, and you can't claim the people then were Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs weren't created until 1870. And you can't claim that those peolpe lived the same lifestyle as you. You don't know that. You have no proof. You guys really like to just make shit up to make it seem like you're the best religious people in the world, don't you? SMH.


Im not arguing if live is only 6000 years old guy. Never have. That has never been a Jehovah's witness teaching. Again, what we disagree on is evolution and the origin of man. Not whether all life (animal, plant, human) is only 6k.

Ok. Now it seems like you are changing your story. I specifically remember you arguing for the creationist's side of a young earth. If we agree that life on earth is very old, then why did you argue with me so much about the fossils of 3.5 billion year old single-celled creatures? Why did you argue with me about Neanderthal paintings? Why did you argue with me about radioactive carbon dating? What a waste of time.

Wait, the bible says that god created the universe in 6 days. So, yes the bible is still wrong about creation. Even if 1000 years to us is 1 day to god (as you've said many times before), we know the universe is at least 14 billion years old. This is a fact. We know that life on earth is at least 3.4 billion years old. This is a fact (and it seems now that suddenly you are willing to agree with me). The math doesn't add up. Even if we factor in 1000 years = 1 day.

So, yes the bible is wrong about creation. It is flat out wrong. This is a fact. An indisputable fact. There is nothing you have to argue against this. So again, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world.



Honestly never seen this question posed. Please oblige.

Geez. It's moot now. You suddenly agree life on earth is very old. But it is a question I proposed about three posts back in this thread. It is how fossil fuels are from the compressed, decaying carbon lifeforms of 100 million years ago. But now that you agree life on earth existed 100 million years ago, there is no point to it.

But again, if life existed 100 million years ago, the math doesn't add up to the bible's version of creation.


Again, no one knows how long each day to God was before man. A day to God could have been thousands to us. And he created all other forms of life before mankind was made. So therefore this could have been several thousands of years. Could have. what we do know now is that a day to God is as a 1k to us. But That does not mean it was that way before man.


Wow. Complete made up bullshit. So the passage of time to us before he created us was changed after he created us. Honestly dude. How can you believe this without laughing at yourself for believing this. Sounds like someone is changing their stories again to make it match with the evidene. You're beginning to run out of options.


We are debating whether we're monkey men. And you or science have yet to show any such being.

I've shown you many, many examples. But unfortunately you require a man with monkey hands. Which is utterly ridiculous and just shows how helpless you really are.

Do you have any pictures of you as a baby with man hands? How come? Because you gradually changed over time. You have pictures of you as a baby, a child, a young man and as an adult. But not any baby-men. With your reasoning, you must have never existed as a child because there is no evidence of YOU as you currently are as a child. It's the same for evolution. The fossils are like pictures of the past. It was a gradual change over millions of years.


This is simply not true. If it were, EVERY SCIENTISTS WOULD AGREE. Since they don't, you're beat. If it's as cut and dry and you make it out to be, there would not be a hint of disagreement in the science world. But there is. Why? Cuz the scientists who disagree are stupid and uneducated like Jehovah's witnesses?

Please give me evidence that has contradicted evolution. Please give me a scientist that has published data in a peer-reviewed journal that refutes the evidence.

There are scientists that are like you. In the face of overwhelming evidence they can't give up their religion. But they still haven't actually published any findings that contradict evolution.

Publishing in a peer-review journal is the gold standard for science. It allows the scientific community to read, study and test the data supplied by the scientist. How come there are no publications contradicting evolution? You would think creationists would want this data out in the public.


Actually, I'm not complaining at all. just saying science which in theory only deals with precision, should never have to revise it's basis. Unless of course it's not a perfect science, which then will lead to many questions. And if it's not perfect, why should one trust it? Because of strength of numbers? 10/17 is a good night in the NBA, but if my life depended on it, I don't know...

There is no such thing as a perfect science. There is no perfect thing anywhere. You even agreed earlier in this thread that the bible is an imperfect book written by imperfect people. So why do you believe the imperfect book? I've already proven the prophecies false, or at least disputable within reason and I've already proven it wrong about creation.


And secondly, we never change the prophecy, but we have had wrong thoughts on when prophecy will take place, or later revelations have helped to shed light on a point or two we may have misapplied. I'm not ashamed to admit this, because we are not a perfect people. But our misunderstanding does not mean that God's word is tainted or wrong. And the very same thing happened to Christians in Jesus day. He simply corrected them and kept them on the path necessary until the time came for more light to be shed on a subject matter. And that is what Jehovah's people have done today.

Jehovah will not be late. The end will come right on time. But his time. We preach the good news and wait til that time. But the Bible does hint on worldly activities during that time, and if one is paying attn, we been in that time for quite awhile. And it's just getting worse and worse. Won't be much longer, and certainly not 50 or 60 years.

In other words, you've changed your story. So what will happen in 60 years when the world will not end? The JWs will finally go away. What will your children do when they realize they've been brought up with lies?

I gaurantee it's not coming. With the utmost certainty.


You just proved my point. It only has 120 people, and still does business in its seaport. drying yard for dragnets.

I hope this is a type-o and not your delusions again. It's a city of 120,000 people. Not 120. Maybe a type-o. Ok moving on.

The prophecy also states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, "never to be rebuilt again". Nebuchadnezzar failed, which is why I pasted the wikipedia history of Tyre. Also it was rebuilt. It's the fourth largest city in Lebanon. It's a large seaport not a small fishing village. Oh, and it is still called Tyre.

But for some reason you focus on the fact that fishing exists in Tyre and that is the reason the prophecy is true. Seems like you are again trying to force something into making it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

So, the bible predicted that a city where fishing occurs would become a city where fishing occurs. Wow!! Bravo bible! Meanwhile, you messed up on the whole Nebuchadnezzar destroying it to "never to be rebuilt again". What a magical book. I should ignore every piece of indisputable evidence disproving the bible because of this. *sarcasm*

And I think possibly you are misinterpreting the saying of spreading fishnets. The prophecy talks about the city being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, never to be rebuilt again and "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets". It's a metaphor, meaning it will be leveled to bare rock. Bare rock is where people in those days spread their fishnets to dry. To be destroyed and never to be rebuilt again but to be rebuilt as a place for fishing. That doesn't make sense and is contradictory in itself.

Geez. I thought you guys were great at understanding the bible. And little ol' me, an atheist, understands the bible better than you. Ha!

But it's moot anyway. The prophecy is false because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. He never leveled it to bare rock and Tyre has been rebuilt. = Failed prophecy.


I can't believe we're still debating this. I proved this prophecy to be false long ago with the same evidence. It's quite evident it will take more than facts an logic to bring you out of your delusion.


The uninhabitable waste land I referred to, was the place where ancient Babylon now sits. Jehovah said no arab will pitch a tent there. Meaning it will never fully be inhabited again. Now since you are the one famous for posting pictures and videos, please, help us out and post some recent pics and videos of what ancient Babylon now looks like. Because I'm pretty sure the last time I seen pics of it, it was a desert in ruins that many have tried to resurrect and have not. Including sadaam once.

Didn't your teachers say pay attn to the board in class? Or did you miss that part getting that grand education of yours? come on smart guy... follow along properly. Tyre and Babylon, two diff outcomes. Keep this up we'll have to get the dunce cap out and put you in the corner!

Ok. I got confused. Because the bible does say for Tyre to be destroyed and never rebuilt again. I never said I was the smartest guy. For some reason you misinterpreted my posts as coming off that way. I apologize for seeming pompous. I didn't mean it.

Phew. Running out of time. I will have to edit this later but...

from wikipedia
Reconstruction
In 1983, Saddam Hussein started rebuilding the city on top of the old ruins (because of this, artifacts and other finds may well be under the city by now), investing in both restoration and new construction. He inscribed his name on many of the bricks in imitation of Nebuchadnezzar. One frequent inscription reads: "This was built by Saddam Hussein, son of Nebuchadnezzar, to glorify Iraq". This recalls the ziggurat at Ur, where each individual brick was stamped with "Ur-Nammu, king of Ur, who built the temple of Nanna". These bricks became sought after as collectors' items after the downfall of Hussein, and the ruins are no longer being restored to their original state. He also installed a huge portrait of himself and Nebuchadnezzar at the entrance to the ruins, and shored up Processional Way, a large boulevard of ancient stones, and the Lion of Babylon, a black rock sculpture about 2,600 years old.

When the Gulf War ended, Saddam wanted to build a modern palace, also over some old ruins; it was made in the pyramidal style of a Sumerian ziggurat. He named it Saddam Hill. In 2003, he was ready to begin the construction of a cable car line over Babylon when the invasion began and halted the project.

An article published in April 2006 states that UN officials and Iraqi leaders have plans for restoring Babylon, making it into a cultural center. [36][37]

As of May 2009, the provincial government of Babil has reopened the site to tourism.


Picture of rebuilt section of Babylon by Sadaam:
Babylon_Ruins_Marines.jpeg


Also, currently we have troops stationed where Babylon was, at Camp Alpha. So this prophecy is wrong too. There are arabs in tents there.

Again you misinterpret the bible. When it says "neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there"

it means: No one will live in Babylon. Even people won't camp there, and shepherds won't let their sheep rest there.

The US Army is curently camped there. = Failed Prophecy

LJ 2, Bible 0. Come to think of it, is the bible right about anything? I mean really, anything? Give me one indisputable fact or evidence that the bible is correct on. Just one.

And why does god want to destroy so many cities? He has a temper problem. He should have known this before, since he can see in the future and all.
 
Last edited:
I've never stated that I was an "ultra intellect" or "tooted my horn" as you say. I don't know where you get that from.

Why would they leave you ask? Geez. I explained that in the previous post. There was a war coming. Many people left. Jews and Christians. Why is that hard for you to understand? People leave when they know a war is coming. Even King Agrippa left.

Wikipedia and this website were my sources:
http://www.livius.org/ja-jn/jewish_wars/jwar03.html


Are you allowed to read the true history? Since you mentioned in the next post that you must stay away from secular education.

Because the Christian congregation would not move based on any other people's moves. that part you will never understand because you do not value the organization of God's people. So you're explanation is invalid because they would not have simply left for fear of what you say. So you are wrong. If they were so scared for their lives they would have never been Christian! They were being slaughtered as is, correct?

And again, silly, no one said to stay away from secular education. They said to be mindful of putting any form of education before God. Some people can handle both, some can't. That's a far cry from staying away from secular education.

You really just don't like to listen lol.





I went through all 20 books of the Antiquities of the Jews and all 7 books of the War of the Jews. I did a search for that quote and parts of that quote to make sure, and did not get any results. When I do a search for that quote in Google, many religious websites come up. It's obvious you copied and pasted this from a creationist website.

So yes, at this point it looks as if that quote was made up. Religious websites are well known for manilpualting, misquoting and sometimes just flat out lying. It was not written by Josephus. Maybe some religious author read Josephus' work and summarized what he thought, but I can't find it. Maybe it's in a different book. If you could please cite it and provide the link, I would appreciate it, for I would like to read this for myself.

Plus, in wikipedia and in the other link I provided you, it explains what happened in 66. There is no mention in any history reference that I can find that suggests the Romans just left for no reason.

Which leads me to ask the question again. Are you allowed to read real history books or are they forbidden? Because you seem to be only using creationist websites and making up your own history to match prophecies.

When I get that for you what will you say? That Josephus was lying? On it asap.











Oh, and you can't claim the people then were Jehovah's Witnesses. The JWs weren't created until 1870. And you can't claim that those peolpe lived the same lifestyle as you. You don't know that. You have no proof. You guys really like to just make shit up to make it seem like you're the best religious people in the world, don't you? SMH.

It's laughable that you would even suggest you have more biblical knowledge or understanding when you can't even see that there have been Jehovah's witnesses basically from the dawn of humanity.

Hebrews 11:4 starts with the very first Jehovah's witness on earth. It reads:
4 By faith Abel offered God a sacrifice of greater worth than Cain, through which [faith] he had witness borne to him that he was righteous, God bearing witness respecting his gifts; and through it he, although he died, yet speaks.


Then the rest of the chapter goes on to speak of many other witnesses of Jehovah. Noah, Abraham, Enoch, etc. But To be assured that they are witnesses chapter 12 opens like this: 12:1


So, then, because we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also put off every weight and the sin that easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us,


Who were these people witnesses of? Who bore witness that they were righteous? Jehovah, that's who. That is why they are his witnesses. This is first grade level stuff here, hope you can follow.


Also, here, the jews were considered his witnesses too. Isaiah 43:10

10 ?YOU are my witnesses,? is the utterance of Jehovah, ?even my servant whom I have chosen, in order that YOU may know and have faith in me, and that YOU may understand that I am the same One. Before me there was no God formed, and after me there continued to be none. 11 I?I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior.?


So it's very simple. If you recognize Jehovah as the only true God and worship him because of it, then you are a witness that he is God. Therefore, it is false to believe that Jehovah's witnesses have only been around for 139 years, because God himself views anyone recognizing him as God in faith is a witness. kabeesh??? I hope we're done with this at least.





Ok. Now it seems like you are changing your story. I specifically remember you arguing for the creationist's side of a young earth. If we agree that life on earth is very old, then why did you argue with me so much about the fossils of 3.5 billion year old single-celled creatures? Why did you argue with me about Neanderthal paintings? Why did you argue with me about radioactive carbon dating? What a waste of time.
You clearly have misunderstood my side of the issue this whole time. The reason we argued was because you believe in evolution. And you believe you're a monkey. Which is fine. But we can't find your people's remains nowhere. so the whole debate about neanderthal, and carbon dating and fossil was all linked to that same point for me. I have issues with being a monkey. You don't. I have issues with strength of numbers (carbon dating tests 10-14, yadda yadda) you don't. I once read a scientist say that instead of a reading being millions of years, it could likely only be thousands. That is a big jump. thousands to millions. If some scientists say this, why should I believe the others who disagree? Strength in numbers? Tough for me.

summary: Carbon dating is unreliable even to some scientists, and they all are not religious, so stop assuming they are. Humans did not evolve from monkeys, that's why I argued against neanderthal paintings, tools and such, along with unreliable carbon dating. the fossil record does not prove we evolve gradually. Hope this helps.


Wait, the bible says that god created the universe in 6 days. So, yes the bible is still wrong about creation. Even if 1000 years to us is 1 day to god (as you've said many times before), we know the universe is at least 14 billion years old. This is a fact. We know that life on earth is at least 3.4 billion years old. This is a fact (and it seems now that suddenly you are willing to agree with me). The math doesn't add up. Even if we factor in 1000 years = 1 day.

So, yes the bible is wrong about creation. It is flat out wrong. This is a fact. An indisputable fact. There is nothing you have to argue against this. So again, if the bible is wrong about creation, how can it be right about the end of the world.

I'm posting a seperate article to deal with this. Hope it helps.





Wow. Complete made up bullshit. So the passage of time to us before he created us was changed after he created us. Honestly dude. How can you believe this without laughing at yourself for believing this. Sounds like someone is changing their stories again to make it match with the evidene. You're beginning to run out of options.
That would sound crazy, but I could not find the article to help explain it better. I have. Will be addressed.




I've shown you many, many examples. But unfortunately you require a man with monkey hands. Which is utterly ridiculous and just shows how helpless you really are.
You're telling me I'm from a monkey, but you can't find the remains of one half monkey, half man, But I'm helpless? did I tell you you were helpless when you said if God was real why wont he reveal himself to you? every specis they have found have been from a monkey, or a man. Even neanderthal is considered a different type of man. Still a man. But I'm nut for wanting to see a ape man remains? Im not even asking for half and half. just sufficient enough to spring doubt in creation. But there is none. i don't think I'm any more helpless in that regard than you do wanting to see God (which would kill you by the way)

Do you have any pictures of you as a baby with man hands? How come? Because you gradually changed over time. You have pictures of you as a baby, a child, a young man and as an adult. But not any baby-men. With your reasoning, you must have never existed as a child because there is no evidence of YOU as you currently are as a child. It's the same for evolution. The fossils are like pictures of the past. It was a gradual change over millions of years.

I will give you an E for effort, but the analogy suffers because, my adult hands are just bigger versions of my baby hands. I just gradually grew into a bigger human, not a bigger half and half species. So the bible is right there, because it said let the earth spring forth living souls according to their kinds. So I grow bigger, but still according to my kind.

You tried it.




Please give me evidence that has contradicted evolution. Please give me a scientist that has published data in a peer-reviewed journal that refutes the evidence.

There are scientists that are like you. In the face of overwhelming evidence they can't give up their religion. But they still haven't actually published any findings that contradict evolution.

Publishing in a peer-review journal is the gold standard for science. It allows the scientific community to read, study and test the data supplied by the scientist. How come there are no publications contradicting evolution? You would think creationists would want this data out in the public.


Please refer back to what does the fossil record really prove? That should help.

And Not every scientist who disagrees with the so called inexplicable evidence of evolution is religious. You cannot possibly believe that.

There is no such thing as a perfect science. There is no perfect thing anywhere. You even agreed earlier in this thread that the bible is an imperfect book written by imperfect people. So why do you believe the imperfect book? I've already proven the prophecies false, or at least disputable within reason and I've already proven it wrong about creation.
so you admit that science could be wrong with its strength in numbers in say carbon dating? Especially in light that you say it's not perfect? So essentially you are going with the in crowd here?

I said I don't argue whether the bible is perfect or not. But it was written by many imperfect men. And for it to be written by imperfect men, the internal harmony is outstanding. And there is no way they could have been in cahootes, because it was written over a long period of time, diff places, diff types of people.

I believe in it because of it's Internal harmony, scientific accuracy, prophetic word, and the writers candor. I'm living in prophetic times predicted several times throughout the bible. none more than Daniel who said that the truth would be abundant in the time of the end. I look up and see that. So no way he could have maneuvered it. he has long been dead.

and you have not proven creation wrong. you only think you have.





In other words, you've changed your story. So what will happen in 60 years when the world will not end? The JWs will finally go away. What will your children do when they realize they've been brought up with lies?

I gaurantee it's not coming. With the utmost certainty
our understanding on some things has been refined, so of course when you understand things differently, your explanation changes some, yes. but we are imperfect right? Are we not allowed to misunderstand for awhile, and then get a grasp on it later? Has that not ever happened to you, or science? So now because we say we have the truth, we somehow better be absolutely perfect? That's retarded.

And the end is so close, one looking around can smell it. You keep thinking you have 60 years. we'll destroy ourselves long before then if we continue as is. And i don't need the Bible to see that much.




I hope this is a type-o and not your delusions again. It's a city of 120,000 people. Not 120. Maybe a type-o. Ok moving on.

The prophecy also states that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre, "never to be rebuilt again". Nebuchadnezzar failed, which is why I pasted the wikipedia history of Tyre. Also it was rebuilt. It's the fourth largest city in Lebanon. It's a large seaport not a small fishing village. Oh, and it is still called Tyre.

But for some reason you focus on the fact that fishing exists in Tyre and that is the reason the prophecy is true. Seems like you are again trying to force something into making it look like a fulfilled prophecy.

So, the bible predicted that a city where fishing occurs would become a city where fishing occurs. Wow!! Bravo bible! Meanwhile, you messed up on the whole Nebuchadnezzar destroying it to "never to be rebuilt again". What a magical book. I should ignore every piece of indisputable evidence disproving the bible because of this. *sarcasm*

And I think possibly you are misinterpreting the saying of spreading fishnets. The prophecy talks about the city being destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, never to be rebuilt again and "I will make you a bare rock, and you will become a place to spread fishnets". It's a metaphor, meaning it will be leveled to bare rock. Bare rock is where people in those days spread their fishnets to dry. To be destroyed and never to be rebuilt again but to be rebuilt as a place for fishing. That doesn't make sense and is contradictory in itself.

Geez. I thought you guys were great at understanding the bible. And little ol' me, an atheist, understands the bible better than you. Ha!

But it's moot anyway. The prophecy is false because Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. He never leveled it to bare rock and Tyre has been rebuilt. = Failed prophecy.

Is Tyre as powerful a nation now as it was in biblical times? No. So they never rebuilt their powerful nation. all it is is a seaport with 120k people (typo). If because of wars it never rebuilds itself to previous power, how can it be rebuilt? It never said no one would live there. And if the prophecy says that it will become a drying yard for dragnets, and its a seaport now, then clearly the Bible accounted for it being rebuilt enough to be inhabited. so "rebuilt" has to logically mean in power and prestige. and that has never been rebuilt. You do realize that rebuilt can have several meanings, right? You can rebuild pride, land, power, etc. So please, lets not debate that rebuilt can apply to Tyre never rebuilding it's power it once had. It can totally apply.









Phew. Running out of time. I will have to edit this later but...

from wikipedia



Picture of rebuilt section of Babylon by Sadaam:
Babylon_Ruins_Marines.jpeg


Also, currently we have troops stationed where Babylon was, at Camp Alpha. So this prophecy is wrong too. There are arabs in tents there.

Again you misinterpret the bible. When it says "neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there"

it means: No one will live in Babylon. Even people won't camp there, and shepherds won't let their sheep rest there.

The US Army is curently camped there. = Failed Prophecy

LJ 2, Bible 0. Come to think of it, is the bible right about anything? I mean really, anything? Give me one indisputable fact or evidence that the bible is correct on. Just one.

And why does god want to destroy so many cities? He has a temper problem. He should have known this before, since he can see in the future and all.
Nothing in here says that people live there. All this says is sadaam wanted to do blah blah blah, but because of xyz, it was called off.

that prophecy refers to inhabitable life there. anyone with half a brain can see that based on the words from generation to generation. Where can you find shepherds and sheep in the desert? That clearly means established habitat. the Smithsonian called the place flat hot deserted and dusty. And army camping there, a failed attempt at a building project, to only become a tourist site is a far cry from the prophecy failing. You are reaching. per usual.

Will address this more too in the next couple of threads.
 
Can you trust the Bible?

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.

05.jpg
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 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, 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?

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.
Bible writers, such as Jonah, recorded their own mistakes
06.jpg

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?

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.
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.
Was Jesus? garment purple or scarlet?
07.jpg

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.
* The Bible is a collection of 66 books, or subdivisions, starting with Genesis and ending with Revelation.
# For more examples of such harmony, see pages 16-17 of the brochure A Book for All People, published by Jehovah?s Witnesses.
% For further information, see chapter 7, ?Does the Bible Contradict Itself?,? of the book The Bible?God?s Word or Man?s? published by Jehovah?s Witnesses.

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.

08.jpg
Far ahead of its time, the Bible correctly stated that the earth is circular and hangs ?upon nothing?

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?^
^ For more examples of the Bible?s scientific accuracy, see pages 18-21 of the brochure A Book for All People, published by Jehovah?s Witnesses.

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.
The Bible accurately foretold that a leader named Cyrus would conquer mighty Babylon
09.jpg

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?
** Weather forecasts are likelihoods. Bible prophecy is inspired by God, who can maneuver events if he chooses to do so.
## For more details regarding the fulfillment of Isaiah?s prophecy, see pages 27-29 of the brochure A Book for All People, published by Jehovah?s Witnesses.
%% For more examples of Bible prophecies and the historical facts documenting their fulfillment, see pages 117-33 of the book The Bible?God?s Word or Man?s? published by Jehovah?s Witnesses.
 
does science contradict the genesis account?

The Bible?s Viewpoint
Does Science
Contradict the
Genesis Account?



Related topics:
MANY people claim that science disproves the Bible?s account of creation. But the real contradiction is between science and, not the Bible, but the opinions of so-called Christian Fundamentalists. Some of these groups falsely assert that according to the Bible, all physical creation was produced in six 24-hour days some 10,000 years ago.
The Bible, however, does not support such a conclusion. If it did, then many scientific discoveries over the past hundred years would indeed discredit the Bible. A careful study of the Bible text reveals no conflict with established scientific facts. For that reason, Jehovah?s Witnesses disagree with ?Christian? Fundamentalists and many creationists. The following shows what the Bible really teaches.
When Was ?the Beginning??

The Genesis account opens with the simple, powerful statement: ?In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.? (Genesis 1:1) Bible scholars agree that this verse describes an action separate from the creative days recounted from verse 3 onward. The implication is profound. According to the Bible?s opening statement, the universe, including our planet Earth, was in existence for an indefinite time before the creative days began.
Geologists estimate that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old, and astronomers calculate that the universe may be as much as 15 billion years old. Do these findings?or their potential future refinements?contradict Genesis 1:1? No. The Bible does not specify the actual age of ?the heavens and the earth.? Science does not disprove the Biblical text.
How Long Were the Creative Days?

What about the length of the creative days? Were they literally 24 hours long? Some claim that because Moses?the writer of Genesis?later referred to the day that followed the six creative days as a model for the weekly Sabbath, each of the creative days must be literally 24 hours long. (Exodus 20:11) Does the wording of Genesis support this conclusion?
No, it does not. The fact is that the Hebrew word translated ?day? can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God?s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4) In addition, on the first creative day, ?God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.? (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term ?day.? Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.
How long, then, were the creative days? The wording of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 indicates that considerable lengths of time were involved.
Creations Appear Gradually

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or ?days,? help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

Genesis does not teach
that the universe was created
in a short period of time
in the relatively
recent past

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one ?day? continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative ?day? started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth?s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first ?day,? this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.*
On the second ?day,? the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth ?day,? the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear ?in the expanse of the heavens.? (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.
The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures?including insects and membrane-winged creatures?started to appear on the fifth ?day.? However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth ?day,? God was still in the process of ?forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.??Genesis 2:19.
Clearly, the Bible?s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each ?day,? or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative ?days.?
According to Their Kinds

Does this progressive appearance of plants and animals imply that God used evolution to produce the vast diversity of living things? No. The record clearly states that God created all the basic ?kinds? of plant and animal life. (Genesis 1:11, 12, 20-25) Were these original ?kinds? of plants and animals programmed with the ability to adapt to changing environmental conditions? What defines the boundary of a ?kind?? The Bible does not say. However, it does state that living creatures ?swarmed forth according to their kinds.? (Genesis 1:21) This statement implies that there is a limit to the amount of variation that can occur within a ?kind.? Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time.
Contrary to the claims of some Fundamentalists, Genesis does not teach that the universe, including the earth and all living things on it, was created in a short period of time in the relatively recent past. Rather, the description in Genesis of the creation of the universe and the appearance of life on earth harmonizes with many recent scientific discoveries.
Because of their philosophical beliefs, many scientists reject the Bible?s declaration that God created all things. Interestingly, however, in the ancient Bible book of Genesis, Moses wrote that the universe had a beginning and that life appeared in stages, progressively, over periods of time. How could Moses gain access to such scientifically accurate information some 3,500 years ago? There is one logical explanation. The One with the power and wisdom to create the heavens and the earth could certainly give Moses such advanced knowledge. This gives weight to the Bible?s claim that it is ?inspired of God.??2 Timothy 3:16.

?In the beginning
God created the heavens
and the earth.??Genesis 1:1

* In the description of what happened on the first ?day,? the Hebrew word used for light is ?ohr, light in a general sense; but concerning the fourth ?day,? the word used is ma??ohr?, which refers to the source of light.

HAVE YOU WONDERED?
 
RECONCILING Science and Religion


Related topics:

"Science and religion [are] no longer seen as incompatible."? The Daily Telegraph, London, May 26, 1999.
BOTH science and religion, in their noblest forms, involve the search for truth. Science discovers a world of magnificent order, a universe that contains distinctive marks of intelligent design. True religion makes these discoveries meaningful by teaching that the mind of the Creator lies behind the design manifest in the physical world.
"I find my appreciation of science is greatly enriched by religion," says Francis Collins, a molecular biologist. He continues: "When I discover something about the human genome, I experience a sense of awe at the mystery of life, and say to myself, 'Wow, only God knew before.' It is a profoundly beautiful and moving sensation, which helps me appreciate God and makes science even more rewarding for me."
What will help one to reconcile science and religion?

creation.jpg
Science has discovered a world full of distinctive marks of intelligent design
An Enduring Quest

Accept the limits: No end is in sight in our quest for answers about the infinite universe, space, and time. Biologist Lewis Thomas noted: "There will be no end to this process, being the insatiably curious species that we are, exploring, looking around and trying to understand things. We're not ever going to get it solved. I can't imagine any terminal point where everyone will breathe a sigh and will say, 'Now we understand the whole thing.' It's going to remain beyond us."
Similarly, when it comes to religious truth, the reach is boundless. One of the Bible writers, Paul, stated: "Now we see only puzzling reflections in a mirror . . . My knowledge now is partial."?1 Corinthians 13:12, The New English Bible.
Partial knowledge concerning both scientific and religious questions, however, does not prevent us from reaching sound conclusions based on the facts we have. We don't need a detailed knowledge of the origin of the sun in order to be absolutely sure that it is going to rise tomorrow.
Let the known facts speak: In the quest for answers, we need to be guided by sound principles. Unless we stick to the highest standards of evidence, we can easily be misled in our search for scientific and religious truth. Realistically, none of us can begin to evaluate all scientific knowledge and ideas, which today fill huge libraries. On the other hand, the Bible provides a manageable compendium of spiritual teachings for our consideration. The Bible is well supported by known facts.*
However, concerning knowledge in general, earnest effort is required to distinguish between fact and speculation, between reality and deception?in both science and religion. As the Bible writer Paul advised, we need to reject "the contradictions of the falsely called 'knowledge.'" (1 Timothy 6:20) To reconcile science and the Bible, we must let the facts speak for themselves, thereby avoiding conjecture and speculation, and examine how each fact supports and adds to the other.
For example, when we understand that the Bible uses the term "day" to represent various periods of time, we see that the account of the six creative days in Genesis need not conflict with the scientific conclusion that the age of the earth is about four and a half billion years. According to the Bible, the earth existed for an unstated period before the creative days began. (See the box "The Creative Days?24 Hours Each?") Even if science corrects itself and suggests a different age for our planet, the statements made in the Bible still hold true. Instead of contradicting the Bible, science in this and many other cases actually provides us with voluminous supplemental information about the physical world, both present and past.
The Creative Days?24 Hours Each?

Some fundamentalists claim that creationism rather than evolution explains pre-human history. They assert that all physical creation was produced in just six days of 24 hours each sometime between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. But in doing so, they promote an unscriptural teaching that has caused many to ridicule the Bible.
Is a day in the Bible always literally 24 hours in length? Genesis 2:4 speaks of "the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven." This one day encompasses all six of the creative days of Genesis chapter 1. According to Bible usage, a day is a measured period of time and can be a thousand years or many thousands of years. The Bible's creative days allow for thousands of years of time each. Further, the earth was already in existence before the creative days began. (Genesis 1:1) On this point, therefore, the Bible account is compatible with true science.?2 Peter 3:8.
Commenting on claims that the creative days were only 24 literal hours in length, molecular biologist Francis Collins remarks: "Creationism has done more harm to serious notions of belief than anything in modern history."
Faith, not credulity: The Bible provides us with knowledge of God and his purposes that cannot be gleaned from any other source. Why should we trust it? The Bible itself invites us to test its accuracy. Consider its historical authenticity, its practicality, the candor of its writers, and its integrity. By investigating the accuracy of the Bible, including statements of a scientific nature and, even more convincingly, the unerring fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies throughout the ages and into our present day, one can acquire firm faith in it as the Word of God. Faith in the Bible is not credulity but a proven confidence in the accuracy of Scriptural statements.
Respect science; acknowledge belief: Jehovah's Witnesses invite open-minded people, both scientific and religious, to share in a sincere quest for truth in both realms. In their congregations the Witnesses nurture a healthy respect for science and its proven findings as well as a profound belief that religious truth can be found only in the Bible, which forthrightly and with abundant evidence declares itself to be the Word of God. The apostle Paul stated: "When you received God's word, which you heard from us, you accepted it, not as the word of men, but, just as it truthfully is, as the word of God."?1 Thessalonians 2:13.
Of course, as with science, damaging falsehoods and practices have infiltrated religion. Thus, there is true religion and false religion. That is why many people have left organized, mainstream religion to become members of the Christian congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. They have been disappointed by the unwillingness of their previous religions to disavow human tradition and myth in favor of discovered or revealed truth.
What is more, true Christians find real meaning and purpose in life, based on an intimate knowledge of the Creator, as he is revealed in the Bible, and of his expressed intentions for humankind and the planet we live on. Jehovah's Witnesses have been satisfied with reasonable, Bible-based answers to such questions as, Why are we here? Where are we going? They would be more than glad to share these insights with you.
brother.jpg
rule.gif
Jehovah's Witnesses nurture respect for true science and belief in the Bible
rule.gif

Has Science Taken the Moral High Ground?

Understandably, religion has been rejected by many people of science for its resistance to scientific progress, its dismal record, and its hypocrisy and cruelty. Professor of microbiology John Postgate points out: "The world's religions have . . . brought the horrors of human sacrifice, crusades, pogroms and inquisitions. In the modern world this darker side of religion has become dangerous. For unlike science, religion is not neutral."
Comparing that with the assumed rationality, objectivity, and discipline of science, Postgate claims that "science has come to occupy the high ground of morality."
Has science really seized the moral high ground? The answer is no. Postgate himself admits that "scientific communities have their share of jealousy, greed, prejudice and envy." He adds that "a few scientists have shown themselves capable of murder in the name of research, as happened in Nazi Germany and Japanese prison camps." And when National Geographic assigned an investigative reporter to find out how a fossil hoax ended up in its pages, the reporter spoke of "a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, [and] corruption."
And, of course, it is science that has given mankind horrific instruments of warfare, such as weapons-grade disease organisms, poison gas, missiles, "smart" bombs, and nuclear bombs.
000000.gif

[SIZE=-1]* See The Bible?God's Word or Man's? published by Jehovah's Witnesses.[/SIZE]
 
Top