PDA

View Full Version : When Did The Oceans Form?



Rose
06-15-2013, 01:39 PM
The biblical account of creation begins with the earth being covered in deep oceans.

Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


After that the waters are divided by a firmament which separates the waters above from the waters below…

Gen.1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Then the Bible says that dry land was made to appear…
Gen.1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


The problem with the Genesis account of the earth’s creation is that the oceans did not form before the land. Every scientific theory on how the earth was formed begins with collisions inside a giant cloud of dust and rocks. The early earth consisted of molten rock and volatile gases…there were no oceans yet. Only after a few hundred million years did the earth’s surface cool enough for water to start condensing into oceans.

“Over millions of years, Earth’s thick steam atmosphere slowly cooled to the point where water was stable as liquid. Clouds formed and the atmosphere rained on the oceans — probably one very shallow ocean covering the planet’s surface, since the continents likely did not yet exist. (Since no geologic record exists for the first 150 million years of the Earth’s history, we can only speculate.) By 4.2 billion years ago, the age of some of the oldest rocks, we know there was liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and that the atmosphere was never so hot that it turned to steam nor so cold that it all froze.” http://www.amnh.org/learn/ocean/Resource1

Once again it seems the Bible has gotten things screwed up…if the biblical authors are going to make the claim that god created the heavens and the earth they better get it right!



Rose

David M
06-15-2013, 11:25 PM
The biblical account of creation begins with the earth being covered in deep oceans.

Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


After that the waters are divided by a firmament which separates the waters above from the waters below…

Gen.1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Then the Bible says that dry land was made to appear…
Gen.1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


The problem with the Genesis account of the earth’s creation is that the oceans did not form before the land. Every scientific theory on how the earth was formed begins with collisions inside a giant cloud of dust and rocks. The early earth consisted of molten rock and volatile gases…there were no oceans yet. Only after a few hundred million years did the earth’s surface cool enough for water to start condensing into oceans.

“Over millions of years, Earth’s thick steam atmosphere slowly cooled to the point where water was stable as liquid. Clouds formed and the atmosphere rained on the oceans — probably one very shallow ocean covering the planet’s surface, since the continents likely did not yet exist. (Since no geologic record exists for the first 150 million years of the Earth’s history, we can only speculate.) By 4.2 billion years ago, the age of some of the oldest rocks, we know there was liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and that the atmosphere was never so hot that it turned to steam nor so cold that it all froze.” http://www.amnh.org/learn/ocean/Resource1

Once again it seems the Bible has gotten things screwed up…if the biblical authors are going to make the claim that god created the heavens and the earth they better get it right!

Rose
Hello Rose
The only one who is screwed up is you. From this last quote in which you have given the link to, it is not saying there was not water on the earth. Given that the earth is as old as it is reckoned, there is nothing in the creation story to conflict with what how science reckon the earth was formed and eventually water covered the earth.
As with all these records dealing with the origins, we have to be careful about what we think based on what the Bible says and also what the Bible does not say. In the general order of things, the Bible is accurate and is not conflicting with how science reckons the earth was formed. It is in the detail, which is not given in the Bible and even scientists were not there to know in detail how things happened and so they have to speculate using their best scientific judgement.

God starts with the earth that had been formed in advance and was as described "without form and void". In other words; it had no order to it, but it suited God's purpose to take what was there and transform it. This is where science begins to part company with creation. The problem with the creation story is only in the fact that we do not have all the detail. We have a general order to things and that is it. We are given enough to explain that the earth as we see it did not come about by itself. It is what the Bible does not tell us, that gives us room to speculate.

You have admitted that in the scientific understanding of how the earth came into existence, that oceans eventually formed. This is the starting point for Genesis and for God to use the earth for his purpose.

The biblical author (God) has got it right and you are so anti the Bible as God's word, you have failed to see that your scientific theory fits in with what Genesis tells us. Please tell me how the matter in the universe came into existence. Science has no explanation other than to say it began from a singularity from which we have the Big Bang and science has not fully explained how that singularity produced the fundamental particles and the forces that are universal.

Unless a full explanation is found, in which there are no hypotheses, there is no reason to rule out God.

All the best


David

Mystykal
06-16-2013, 12:33 AM
The biblical account of creation begins with the earth being covered in deep oceans.

Gen.1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


After that the waters are divided by a firmament which separates the waters above from the waters below…

Gen.1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Then the Bible says that dry land was made to appear…
Gen.1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.


The problem with the Genesis account of the earth’s creation is that the oceans did not form before the land. Every scientific theory on how the earth was formed begins with collisions inside a giant cloud of dust and rocks. The early earth consisted of molten rock and volatile gases…there were no oceans yet. Only after a few hundred million years did the earth’s surface cool enough for water to start condensing into oceans.

“Over millions of years, Earth’s thick steam atmosphere slowly cooled to the point where water was stable as liquid. Clouds formed and the atmosphere rained on the oceans — probably one very shallow ocean covering the planet’s surface, since the continents likely did not yet exist. (Since no geologic record exists for the first 150 million years of the Earth’s history, we can only speculate.) By 4.2 billion years ago, the age of some of the oldest rocks, we know there was liquid water on the Earth’s surface, and that the atmosphere was never so hot that it turned to steam nor so cold that it all froze.” http://www.amnh.org/learn/ocean/Resource1

Once again it seems the Bible has gotten things screwed up…if the biblical authors are going to make the claim that god created the heavens and the earth they better get it right!



Rose

Hi Rose:
You said. "Once again it seems the Bible has gotten things screwed up…if the biblical authors are going to make the claim that god created the heavens and the earth they better get it right!

I am sure you realize that the creation story does not corrolate with the big bang at all! So "getting it right" is not on the table for those creationists that take the Bible as the Word of God. The facts of science are not considered facts at all. It's like apples and oranges... fruit yes but not really the same. So your observations are really not going to help the mind which is already thinking that the Bible IS the Word of God. :D

Namaste,

Mystykal
]

Richard Amiel McGough
06-16-2013, 08:26 AM
The biblical author (God) has got it right and you are so anti the Bible as God's word, you have failed to see that your scientific theory fits in with what Genesis tells us. Please tell me how the matter in the universe came into existence. Science has no explanation other than to say it began from a singularity from which we have the Big Bang and science has not fully explained how that singularity produced the fundamental particles and the forces that are universal.

Unless a full explanation is found, in which there are no hypotheses, there is no reason to rule out God.

Hey there David,

I agree there is no reason to "rule out" any possibility of any kind of God since that is beyond human knowledge, but we have every reason to rule out Yahweh, the God of the Bible. And more to the point, we have no good reason to invent any "god" as an explanation for things that science cannot yet explain. That's just the "God of the gaps" argument that has been proven wrong in every case that could be tested.

Your demand for a "full explanation" is a double standard because the Bible is filled gross errors and inconsistencies for which you have no "full explanation." Yet you blindly hold to your unfounded doctrine that the Bible is God's trustworthy word. How do you justify such a blatant inconsistency?

All the best,

Richard

Rose
06-16-2013, 11:37 AM
Hello Rose
The only one who is screwed up is you.

Well David, that was pretty rude! I never said you were screwed up only the Bible.


From this last quote in which you have given the link to, it is not saying there was not water on the earth. Given that the earth is as old as it is reckoned, there is nothing in the creation story to conflict with what how science reckon the earth was formed and eventually water covered the earth.
As with all these records dealing with the origins, we have to be careful about what we think based on what the Bible says and also what the Bible does not say. In the general order of things, the Bible is accurate and is not conflicting with how science reckons the earth was formed. It is in the detail, which is not given in the Bible and even scientists were not there to know in detail how things happened and so they have to speculate using their best scientific judgement.

God starts with the earth that had been formed in advance and was as described "without form and void". In other words; it had no order to it, but it suited God's purpose to take what was there and transform it. This is where science begins to part company with creation. The problem with the creation story is only in the fact that we do not have all the detail. We have a general order to things and that is it. We are given enough to explain that the earth as we see it did not come about by itself. It is what the Bible does not tell us, that gives us room to speculate.

You have admitted that in the scientific understanding of how the earth came into existence, that oceans eventually formed. This is the starting point for Genesis and for God to use the earth for his purpose.

The Bible states that in the beginning when god created the earth it was without form (water is shapeless) and void (this could be a lack of any substance like dry land) and completely covered in water. The three stated conditions of earth's beginning formlessness, being void, and covered in water is how the Bible says earth was before dry land was made to appear. According to scientists the earth has never been completely covered in water without any dry land as the Bible says it was.

The main problem with the biblical account of creation is the order of events. First; water covers the entire planet before there is dry land, second; day and night are created before the sun, and thirdly plants are created before the sun. Everyone knows that the order of Genesis is wrong and that is why Bible believers are constantly manipulating and twisting Scripture to say something different than it actually says.


The biblical author (God) has got it right and you are so anti the Bible as God's word, you have failed to see that your scientific theory fits in with what Genesis tells us. Please tell me how the matter in the universe came into existence. Science has no explanation other than to say it began from a singularity from which we have the Big Bang and science has not fully explained how that singularity produced the fundamental particles and the forces that are universal.

Unless a full explanation is found, in which there are no hypotheses, there is no reason to rule out God.

All the best


David

Just because science does not have all the answers to how the universe began, or how matter came into existence does not mean the biblegod did it. Science can easily say that the Bibles description of creation is wrong without knowing exactly how the universe began, and even though the Bible and its god are proved wrong and therefore false, some other form of higher intelligence could exist. It's not the job of science to prove god's existence, rather it is the job of those who believe in god to deliver proof of his existence. Believers are constantly demanding evidence and proof from science for every claim they make (and they well should), but no such proof or evidence is forthcoming for their claims of "God did it", so why the double standard? It should be a two way street, proof and evidence all the way around.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-16-2013, 12:01 PM
Hi Rose:
You said. "Once again it seems the Bible has gotten things screwed up…if the biblical authors are going to make the claim that god created the heavens and the earth they better get it right!

I am sure you realize that the creation story does not corrolate with the big bang at all! So "getting it right" is not on the table for those creationists that take the Bible as the Word of God. The facts of science are not considered facts at all. It's like apples and oranges... fruit yes but not really the same. So your observations are really not going to help the mind which is already thinking that the Bible IS the Word of God. :D

Namaste,

Mystykal
]

Hi Mystykal

Saying "the facts of science are not considered facts at all" is a pretty broad and general statement that is false and means nothing. The Bible makes definite statements as to the order of how the earth and heavens were formed. It is these statements that conflict with the facts of science: day and night did not happen before there was a sun, plants did not grow before there was a sun, and the earth was not completely covered with water before there was any dry land. Those are just facts which the Bible is in direct contradiction with and has nothing to do with trying to change the mind of a fundamentalist Bible believer.

Take care,
Rose

David M
06-16-2013, 02:54 PM
Well David, that was pretty rude! I never said you were screwed up only the Bible.

The Bible states that in the beginning when god created the earth it was without form (water is shapeless) and void (this could be a lack of any substance like dry land) and completely covered in water. The three stated conditions of earth's beginning formlessness, being void, and covered in water is how the Bible says earth was before dry land was made to appear. According to scientists the earth has never been completely covered in water without any dry land as the Bible says it was.

The main problem with the biblical account of creation is the order of events. First; water covers the entire planet before there is dry land, second; day and night are created before the sun, and thirdly plants are created before the sun. Everyone knows that the order of Genesis is wrong and that is why Bible believers are constantly manipulating and twisting Scripture to say something different than it actually says.
Not everyone thinks as you do Rose. There are more than you think who accept the order in Genesis is correct. I am not going to attempt to reconcile the Creation with Evolution, even though I can accept a logical order in the complexity of creation leading up to man and the most complex of organs; the human brain.
If we use our brains, and look at the words closely, Genesis is not saying that water flooded the earth. The words indicate that areas of water existed everywhere and that God gathered them together to form the seas and so where water was, before it was "gathered together", dry land was left behind. It does not say, there was no dry land at all before God gathered the waters together. The Creation story is not meant to be a lesson in science and we are not told in great detail what took place. It is sufficient to present a simple story and yet in that simplicity, the few facts we are given show a logical progression and a correct order to the establishment of creating the environment into which man would be created.




Just because science does not have all the answers to how the universe began, or how matter came into existence does not mean the biblegod did it. Science can easily say that the Bibles description of creation is wrong without knowing exactly how the universe began, and even though the Bible and its god are proved wrong and therefore false, some other form of higher intelligence could exist. It's not the job of science to prove god's existence, rather it is the job of those who believe in god to deliver proof of his existence. Believers are constantly demanding evidence and proof from science for every claim they make (and they well should), but no such proof or evidence is forthcoming for their claims of "God did it", so why the double standard? It should be a two way street, proof and evidence all the way around.
We have problems understanding the beginning, whether that be; where did God come from? or where did matter come from?. The Bible is dealing more about life and the relationship between God and man. God has revealed himself to people some of whom are the prophets giving his people his message. These messages were written down and preserved so that it could be seen whether the prophet was telling the truth. If the Jew's ancient scriptures and in particular the prophecies as spoken by the prophets, were just the writings of men, then the prophecies of future events would not have happened and your point would be proven. However, there is much prophecy that has been fulfilled. Even Preterists, who I disagree with about the date of the fulfilment, do not doubt the fulfilment of prophecy.
I know the evidence I put forward as fulfilled prophecy is denied by those who just want to deny it, yet prophecy, and foretelling the future, is the only test that proves the existence of God. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens? There is not a man or woman who can accurately predict the future. I have the proof of prophecy in God's word, which science alone cannot give any proof for. The fact that you reject the proof given in the Bible in favor of science is up to you, but you cannot say the people who believe the Bible do not have proof.

All the best
David

David M
06-16-2013, 03:14 PM
Hey there David,

I agree there is no reason to "rule out" any possibility of any kind of God since that is beyond human knowledge, but we have every reason to rule out Yahweh, the God of the Bible. And more to the point, we have no good reason to invent any "god" as an explanation for things that science cannot yet explain. That's just the "God of the gaps" argument that has been proven wrong in every case that could be tested.

Your demand for a "full explanation" is a double standard because the Bible is filled gross errors and inconsistencies for which you have no "full explanation." Yet you blindly hold to your unfounded doctrine that the Bible is God's trustworthy word. How do you justify such a blatant inconsistency?

All the best,

Richard

Hello Richard
What are the errors and inconsistencies that would cause me to have a double standard. I expect science to tell me the origin to the universe I can believe or else I accept the Bible explanation. Errors in God's word involving what happened to Israel or to do with with prophecy has nothing to do with science of creation which is at the heart of this discussion. There are not so many errors or problems you say there are and the few errors and problems that remain, do not affect the integrity of the Bible. There is a consistent message, when all of the Bible is taken into account, and this outweighs any of the few difficult passages to understand.
God is trustworthy and keeps to his word. That is what the Bible reveals, but answering a soundbite from you in a few words is not going to prove this point here and s I suggest any specific points you want to discuss about this are dealt with in a new thread.
All the best
David

Mystykal
06-16-2013, 10:48 PM
Hi Mystykal

Saying "the facts of science are not considered facts at all" is a pretty broad and general statement that is false and means nothing. The Bible makes definite statements as to the order of how the earth and heavens were formed. It is these statements that conflict with the facts of science: day and night did not happen before there was a sun, plants did not grow before there was a sun, and the earth was not completely covered with water before there was any dry land. Those are just facts which the Bible is in direct contradiction with and has nothing to do with trying to change the mind of a fundamentalist Bible believer.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
I will try and be a little bit more precise. The order of creation in Genesis is NOT subject to any "laws" of science. Since GOD "did it" your logic in saying that the Bible must follow the ideas as laid out in the big bang model is FALSE. The idea that the sun is the ONLY light source for plants to grow and therefore the Bible IS WRONG - is well just wrong. You see your logic is not based on the same perspective which the Bible contends is the "God model". So your ideas are in opposition to the "Word of GOD". Period. The Bible is not supposed to follow the big bang model. The two perspectives are just that - two different perspectives.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-17-2013, 08:02 AM
Hi Rose:
I will try and be a little bit more precise. The order of creation in Genesis is NOT subject to any "laws" of science. Since GOD "did it" your logic in saying that the Bible must follow the ideas as laid out in the big bang model is FALSE. The idea that the sun is the ONLY light source for plants to grow and therefore the Bible IS WRONG - is well just wrong. You see your logic is not based on the same perspective which the Bible contends is the "God model". So your ideas are in opposition to the "Word of GOD". Period. The Bible is not supposed to follow the big bang model. The two perspectives are just that - two different perspectives.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal

Your pattern of thought really does baffle me. :confused: Why in the world would you take an illogical order of how things were created, contained in an ancient book based on mythology, written by primitive men and think that an intelligent mind would work that way? If there truly is an intelligence that created the logically ordered world we see around us, then it stands to reason that the intelligent beings he created could figure out the order of creation because it would be logical (like it is). Why would you ever think that a haphazard, mixed up order is a valid perspective? From logical, rational thought we can conclude if there is a intelligent creator, the Bible is definitely NOT his word! The extremes people go to try and validate the creation myth in Genesis is quite astounding...here is a good article addressing that issue http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/16/the-key-to-understanding-genesis/

If you are at all familiar with ancient near east myths, you will know that the Genesis account of creation is probably based on the myth of the goddess of the ocean Tiamat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat) contained in the Enuma Elish, which is the Babylonian story of creation. In Enuma Elish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Elish), Tiamat (the Hebrew word for deep tehowm is probably derived from Tiamat) is killed by the storm god Marduk and her body is divided to make the heavens and the oceans. Many scholars believe that the biblical story of creation was based on the much older myth of creation contained in the Enuma Elish, which would explain the crazy mixed up order that Genesis contains.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-17-2013, 10:14 AM
Not everyone thinks as you do Rose. There are more than you think who accept the order in Genesis is correct. I am not going to attempt to reconcile the Creation with Evolution, even though I can accept a logical order in the complexity of creation leading up to man and the most complex of organs; the human brain.
If we use our brains, and look at the words closely, Genesis is not saying that water flooded the earth. The words indicate that areas of water existed everywhere and that God gathered them together to form the seas and so where water was, before it was "gathered together", dry land was left behind. It does not say, there was no dry land at all before God gathered the waters together. The Creation story is not meant to be a lesson in science and we are not told in great detail what took place. It is sufficient to present a simple story and yet in that simplicity, the few facts we are given show a logical progression and a correct order to the establishment of creating the environment into which man would be created.
Hi David

I'm sure there are many, many Christians who think the order of Genesis is correct because they have no choice if they believe that the Bible is god's word.

How can you possibly say that there is a "logical progression" and "correct order" to the days of creation contained in Genesis? With the few statements that are made, I listed out three HUGE problems: Genesis is absolutely saying that in the beginning the waters covered the earth and that dry land was brought forth afterward from dividing the waters on the second day. Also, day and night (which is caused by the earth orbiting the sun) are ordered on the first day, whereas the sun and stars appear on the fourth day after the plants are created on the third day. The proper logical order should be: sun > earth (dry land) > water > plants and animals. If the biblical god really exists he could have easily conveyed the proper order to primitive man, there is no reason not to. Here is a article you should read about the proper order of Genesis: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/16/the-key-to-understanding-genesis/




We have problems understanding the beginning, whether that be; where did God come from? or where did matter come from?. The Bible is dealing more about life and the relationship between God and man. God has revealed himself to people some of whom are the prophets giving his people his message. These messages were written down and preserved so that it could be seen whether the prophet was telling the truth. If the Jew's ancient scriptures and in particular the prophecies as spoken by the prophets, were just the writings of men, then the prophecies of future events would not have happened and your point would be proven. However, there is much prophecy that has been fulfilled. Even Preterists, who I disagree with about the date of the fulfilment, do not doubt the fulfilment of prophecy.
I know the evidence I put forward as fulfilled prophecy is denied by those who just want to deny it, yet prophecy, and foretelling the future, is the only test that proves the existence of God. Who else can tell you a thing before it happens? There is not a man or woman who can accurately predict the future. I have the proof of prophecy in God's word, which science alone cannot give any proof for. The fact that you reject the proof given in the Bible in favor of science is up to you, but you cannot say the people who believe the Bible do not have proof.

All the best
David

You are correct in saying that generally people cannot accurately predict the future, that is why most of the prophecies in the Bible are wrong (unless words are twisted and contorted to try and make them say something other than what is written), because the Bible was written by men. It is not the job of science to try and prove the Bible wrong or right, the job of science is to interpret the evidence and make conclusions based on that evidence. Science is self correcting, if an hypothesis doesn't hold up it is trashed, because knowledge cannot be based on falsehoods which don't hold up (airplanes don't fly and computers don't compute based on false knowledge). Whereas, the job of Bible believers is to make the Bible appear truthful and correct no matter what lengths they must go to in justifying its words.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
06-18-2013, 01:02 AM
Hi Mystykal

Your pattern of thought really does baffle me. :confused: Why in the world would you take an illogical order of how things were created, contained in an ancient book based on mythology, written by primitive men and think that an intelligent mind would work that way? If there truly is an intelligence that created the logically ordered world we see around us, then it stands to reason that the intelligent beings he created could figure out the order of creation because it would be logical (like it is). Why would you ever think that a haphazard, mixed up order is a valid perspective? From logical, rational thought we can conclude if there is a intelligent creator, the Bible is definitely NOT his word! The extremes people go to try and validate the creation myth in Genesis is quite astounding...here is a good article addressing that issue http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/16/the-key-to-understanding-genesis/

If you are at all familiar with ancient near east myths, you will know that the Genesis account of creation is probably based on the myth of the goddess of the ocean Tiamat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiamat) contained in the Enuma Elish, which is the Babylonian story of creation. In Enuma Elish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En%C3%BBma_Elish), Tiamat (the Hebrew word for deep tehowm is probably derived from Tiamat) is killed by the storm god Marduk and her body is divided to make the heavens and the oceans. Many scholars believe that the biblical story of creation was based on the much older myth of creation contained in the Enuma Elish, which would explain the crazy mixed up order that Genesis contains.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

You bring up some very good questions... I was just trying to get you to see that the story of creation in the Bible is NOT about the FACTS! It's a story which builds on a "GOD Model" which cannot be specifically placed anywhere. I know you would like GOD to be "LOGICAL" according to the logic of a person living today. But that is not the way the Bible is written. To say that "cavemen" idiots wrote the Bbile is to deny the Divine origins of the book itself. So then you have to say that the GOD of the Bible does not exist! Then you have to conclude that NO GOD exists! Or at least you cannot know them if they do! That is the logical conclusion.....

So that other alternatives as to why the "facts" of Genesis seem so illogical...

A. Stupid people are repeating myths
B. The order of creation is following a pattern
C. GOD inspired holy men to write the ideas down as a way to show us how to obtain immortality.

So... if those are our choices and we must conclude that the Bible and inspired writings in general are here to show us the "bigger picture" - then I have to go with C. answer!

You want things to make sense in a bubble which you create and then destroy! That is the ultimate "straw man" argument! I am looking at the creation story as a hidden puzzle where the Rabbi's discovered the 72 names for the GOD of Creation. The hidden forms of mystery are far more important in terms of accuracy than the surface information found in the story. Some whould say it is the hidden aspects which are so important that despite the alterations in the words themselves over time - the hidden meanings have stayed intact! The mystery of Holiness is still present. "You will find me when you search for me with all of your heart." This axiom still holds true!

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
06-18-2013, 02:58 AM
Hello Rose


Hi David

I'm sure there are many, many Christians who think the order of Genesis is correct because they have no choice if they believe that the Bible is god's word.

How can you possibly say that there is a "logical progression" and "correct order" to the days of creation contained in Genesis? With the few statements that are made, I listed out three HUGE problems: Genesis is absolutely saying that in the beginning the waters covered the earth and that dry land was brought forth afterward from dividing the waters on the second day. Also, day and night (which is caused by the earth orbiting the sun) are ordered on the first day, whereas the sun and stars appear on the fourth day after the plants are created on the third day. The proper logical order should be: sun > earth (dry land) > water > plants and animals. If the biblical god really exists he could have easily conveyed the proper order to primitive man, there is no reason not to. Here is a article you should read about the proper order of Genesis: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/16/the-key-to-understanding-genesis/
The fact that God gave light to begin with did not need the Sun. In fact you make the point that the Sun was created or put in orbit after the plants. As we know, this was for God to set times and seasons. This means God was supplying the light necessary. A day could have been any length of time because it was not governed by the Sun. We are told God divided the light from the darkness and exactly what that meant and how it was implemented is open to question. It allows for the possibility that whilst God was creating the plants, then the animals (note; in the correct sequence) when God had finished the work representing one day, there could have been a period of darkness like God turning off his lights until the next day starts and the next phase of creation begins. The sun and moon are irrelevant until required for man. It does not change the fact that God while creating the animals could have continued to give his light all over the earth to sustain the plants and animals.
The Sun and moon are the most important astronomical bodies in our universe and almost as an incidental fact, it is mentioned; "God made the stars also". In the wisdom of God in which it simply states that God stretched out the heavens, at that time, the position of the stars and planets were such that we have the astronomical signs in the heavens. By the time man is made, everything is in place and man's day is governed by the sun. The agricultural calendar is also governed by the sun.



You are correct in saying that generally people cannot accurately predict the future, that is why most of the prophecies in the Bible are wrong (unless words are twisted and contorted to try and make them say something other than what is written), because the Bible was written by men. Is that an admission from you that some of the prophecies in the Bible are correct? It is wrong not to correct the way verses have been translated in order to find the true meaning as the author intended. In many cases, our misunderstanding comes from the choice of words by the translators. It is not twisting words to get to the correct meaning of what the author(s) intended us to understand. The Bible is totally correct and I see more prophecies being fulfilled than you do. I have no doubt all prophecy will be fulfilled, even though I cannot predict the exact date and sequence of events. There is plenty happening right now to show me prophecy is being fulfilled.


It is not the job of science to try and prove the Bible wrong or right, the job of science is to interpret the evidence and make conclusions based on that evidence. Science is self correcting, if an hypothesis doesn't hold up it is trashed, because knowledge cannot be based on falsehoods which don't hold up (airplanes don't fly and computers don't compute based on false knowledge). Whereas, the job of Bible believers is to make the Bible appear truthful and correct no matter what lengths they must go to in justifying its words. I could say it is not the Bible's job to prove science right or wrong. Much of science we accept and it is good that we have the God-given ability in our minds to search these things out. It shows that God has set laws in place that govern the universe and that God's word remains as constant as the laws which govern the universe. What cannot be known is the power and the way in which God is able to create. The God-factor can do things we cannot imagine and yet science is trying to forge links to explain the observable things that only God is able to explain, but has not done so.

There is much of science that is open to speculation and is based on hypotheses. Astro-physics is one and Evolution is another. The theory of Evolution has a long way to go before it will convince me. I know there is a lot of information gathered and much has been done to find the links, and lots of similarities have been found to suggest a link, but so much remains conjecture that Evolution is not proven to be certain. We shall always have the problem of origins to think about in science, whereas the origin of the universe which is God, gives all the explanation required for those who believe in God. It is what we do with our lives and the way we live that is far more important than what we know of the origin of things. Some people do not want to do anything with their lives and that is their choice.

Since you mention computers, I will make the point that I made in another post and Greatest I am (DL) did not answer. (DL please take note. Rose replies in the way you do not or cannot).
What if the greatest artificial intelligence, which has been made by man, collects information and comes to the conclusion it has evolved. What would you say to the artificial intelligence? How would you prove to the artificial intelligence it did not evolve?

The problem can be taken a stage further. Let's say the artificial intelligence can control a mass of machines and robots to make the components which are necessary to make a duplicate of itself, but it does not pass on the instructions to the next intelligence it has just built. Now this newly built intelligence from the information it learns (not knowing about how it was built) comes to the conclusion it evolved. Maybe it thinks it has come from previous computers with the intelligence to replicate themselves and it can do the same. How do you answer this computer/intelligence knowing what you know?

All the best

David

Rose
06-18-2013, 11:11 AM
Hello Rose


The fact that God gave light to begin with did not need the Sun. In fact you make the point that the Sun was created or put in orbit after the plants. As we know, this was for God to set times and seasons. This means God was supplying the light necessary. A day could have been any length of time because it was not governed by the Sun. We are told God divided the light from the darkness and exactly what that meant and how it was implemented is open to question. It allows for the possibility that whilst God was creating the plants, then the animals (note; in the correct sequence) when God had finished the work representing one day, there could have been a period of darkness like God turning off his lights until the next day starts and the next phase of creation begins. The sun and moon are irrelevant until required for man. It does not change the fact that God while creating the animals could have continued to give his light all over the earth to sustain the plants and animals.
The Sun and moon are the most important astronomical bodies in our universe and almost as an incidental fact, it is mentioned; "God made the stars also". In the wisdom of God in which it simply states that God stretched out the heavens, at that time, the position of the stars and planets were such that we have the astronomical signs in the heavens. By the time man is made, everything is in place and man's day is governed by the sun. The agricultural calendar is also governed by the sun.
Hi David

There is a big difference between creating light and calling the division of light and darkness, day and night. Day and night are specific terms connected to the rotation of the earth around the sun. The way in which the entire Bible uses the word day is in reference to hours of the suns light on earth. The problem is Genesis says that god created light and called the light "Day", so apparently the authors of the Bible were confused and thought that light was a concept different than the sun. Also, primitive man's idea of heaven was separate from the stars that fill the universe, heaven was the abode of god and the angels. So, if the Bible was not meant to convey the way in which its authors thought god created the earth and heaven, then it should not have been structured in a day by day progressive manner (which is logically wrong).



Is that an admission from you that some of the prophecies in the Bible are correct? It is wrong not to correct the way verses have been translated in order to find the true meaning as the author intended. In many cases, our misunderstanding comes from the choice of words by the translators. It is not twisting words to get to the correct meaning of what the author(s) intended us to understand. The Bible is totally correct and I see more prophecies being fulfilled than you do. I have no doubt all prophecy will be fulfilled, even though I cannot predict the exact date and sequence of events. There is plenty happening right now to show me prophecy is being fulfilled.

Even astrologers and psychics are right in their predictions some of the time, this does not mean they are really able to see into the future. The same holds true for the Bible, if there are some prophecies that appear to have been fulfilled they are well within the expected percentages that would happen by making well educated guesses. A true all knowing god would be correct 100% of the time with NO errors, and if the Bible was meant to be a guide to knowing god, humans should not have to struggle with trying to interpret it.



I could say it is not the Bible's job to prove science right or wrong. Much of science we accept and it is good that we have the God-given ability in our minds to search these things out. It shows that God has set laws in place that govern the universe and that God's word remains as constant as the laws which govern the universe. What cannot be known is the power and the way in which God is able to create. The God-factor can do things we cannot imagine and yet science is trying to forge links to explain the observable things that only God is able to explain, but has not done so.

If god truly did create all things, why should there be any problem in discovering the laws he used in the creation process? The real issue is not so much IF there is an intelligent mind behind the creation process, but rather that the Bible god is thought to be that mind. Step by step everything that humans discover about the natural world directly contradicts the biblical explanation of how things began. Science is not anti-god, but rather it is pro-discovery, it is not the fault of the scientists if the evidence does not support the Bible. The Bible reflects the primitive state of mans knowledge at that point in history, which is normal...one does not expect an immature child to understand advanced mathematics. At the time of the Bibles authorship humans were still in their infancy as far as scientific discoveries were concerned, so if there were an intelligent mind behind the creation of the universe one would not expect him to reveal things to children that they cannot understand.



There is much of science that is open to speculation and is based on hypotheses. Astro-physics is one and Evolution is another. The theory of Evolution has a long way to go before it will convince me. I know there is a lot of information gathered and much has been done to find the links, and lots of similarities have been found to suggest a link, but so much remains conjecture that Evolution is not proven to be certain. We shall always have the problem of origins to think about in science, whereas the origin of the universe which is God, gives all the explanation required for those who believe in God. It is what we do with our lives and the way we live that is far more important than what we know of the origin of things. Some people do not want to do anything with their lives and that is their choice.

If all the truckloads of facts concerning Evolution does not convince you, why were you so easily convinced that an archaic book, written by primitive men, and full of errors, is the word of god? Shouldn't you hold the Bible to the same standards that you hold science to?



Since you mention computers, I will make the point that I made in another post and Greatest I am (DL) did not answer. (DL please take note. Rose replies in the way you do not or cannot).
What if the greatest artificial intelligence, which has been made by man, collects information and comes to the conclusion it has evolved. What would you say to the artificial intelligence? How would you prove to the artificial intelligence it did not evolve?

The problem can be taken a stage further. Let's say the artificial intelligence can control a mass of machines and robots to make the components which are necessary to make a duplicate of itself, but it does not pass on the instructions to the next intelligence it has just built. Now this newly built intelligence from the information it learns (not knowing about how it was built) comes to the conclusion it evolved. Maybe it thinks it has come from previous computers with the intelligence to replicate themselves and it can do the same. How do you answer this computer/intelligence knowing what you know?

All the best

David

The problem with "what ifs" is that we have no way of knowing if that scenario could ever happen, so there are way to many unknowns for me to even attempt to speculate. When we compare the way living organisms evolve, to the way a computer is constructed of parts, we see a huge difference in the way that life unfolds out of itself in a continuous unbroken chain; whereas anything that humans make is constructed of individual parts that have no innate connection. Therefore I don't think they can be compared. When you think about the massive amount of time it took for the first prokaryotic cells to evolve into eukaryotic cells - 1.7 billion years - it makes you realize just how slow a process evolution is. One tiny change at a time, over billions of years accomplishes a lot.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
06-18-2013, 11:36 AM
Hi Rose:

You bring up some very good questions... I was just trying to get you to see that the story of creation in the Bible is NOT about the FACTS! It's a story which builds on a "GOD Model" which cannot be specifically placed anywhere. I know you would like GOD to be "LOGICAL" according to the logic of a person living today. But that is not the way the Bible is written. To say that "cavemen" idiots wrote the Bbile is to deny the Divine origins of the book itself. So then you have to say that the GOD of the Bible does not exist! Then you have to conclude that NO GOD exists! Or at least you cannot know them if they do! That is the logical conclusion.....
Hi Mystykal

The creation story in the Bible is absolutely presented as the way Yahweh created earth and heaven! It is laid out in a progressive manner that recounts each step in the process. The biblical authors would have no reason to present creation in an order other than how they perceived things happened, and if god inspired the biblical authors there would be no logical reason to present the creation order in a mixed up erroneous fashion. Humans could have understood the correct order just as easily as the incorrect order. So, yes, the ultimate conclusion is that NO biblical god exists and men made up the story of creation based on their own primitive perceptions of how the universe began.


So that other alternatives as to why the "facts" of Genesis seem so illogical...

A. Stupid people are repeating myths
B. The order of creation is following a pattern
C. GOD inspired holy men to write the ideas down as a way to show us how to obtain immortality.

So... if those are our choices and we must conclude that the Bible and inspired writings in general are here to show us the "bigger picture" - then I have to go with C. answer!

You want things to make sense in a bubble which you create and then destroy! That is the ultimate "straw man" argument! I am looking at the creation story as a hidden puzzle where the Rabbi's discovered the 72 names for the GOD of Creation. The hidden forms of mystery are far more important in terms of accuracy than the surface information found in the story. Some whould say it is the hidden aspects which are so important that despite the alterations in the words themselves over time - the hidden meanings have stayed intact! The mystery of Holiness is still present. "You will find me when you search for me with all of your heart." This axiom still holds true!

Namaste,

Mystykal

Answer C does not really make a lot of sense when one considers the fact that the Old Testament does not deal with immortality or the after life. If it is the hidden aspects of Scripture that are most important, then 99.999% of all people who have ever lived were and are ignorant of what is most important!

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
06-18-2013, 10:56 PM
Hi Mystykal

The creation story in the Bible is absolutely presented as the way Yahweh created earth and heaven! It is laid out in a progressive manner that recounts each step in the process. The biblical authors would have no reason to present creation in an order other than how they perceived things happened, and if god inspired the biblical authors there would be no logical reason to present the creation order in a mixed up erroneous fashion. Humans could have understood the correct order just as easily as the incorrect order. So, yes, the ultimate conclusion is that NO biblical god exists and men made up the story of creation based on their own primitive perceptions of how the universe began.



Answer C does not really make a lot of sense when one considers the fact that the Old Testament does not deal with immortality or the after life. If it is the hidden aspects of Scripture that are most important, then 99.999% of all people who have ever lived were and are ignorant of what is most important!

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

Maybe you and I are reading different Bibles! But to say that "Answer C does not really make a lot of sense when one considers the fact that the Old Testament does not deal with immortality or the after life."... Is crazy! The whole after-life issue is started in the garden and the lie of the snake when it says "Ye shall not surely die!" And the reason according to Genesis as to why Adam and Eve were forced out of the garden was that GOD did not want them to eat from the tree of life and live FOREVER! The notion that they could eat one time and live forever does not hold as the tree gave a different fruit each month of the year. And the leaves of the tree "are for the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:2

So just taking the facts of the STORY the issue of order is not the issue! The day is not made by the sun. But by the rotation of the earth on its axis. You really need to start letting the Book tell its own story! Stop trying to "prove" it right or wrong! The issue is more about why such a book like the Bible has mesmerized people for thousands of years? It does seem strange! However, as you say "If it is the hidden aspects of Scripture that are most important, then 99.999% of all people who have ever lived were and are ignorant of what is most important!" The important stuff IS hidden in the text itself and "few there be that find it."

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-19-2013, 11:49 AM
Hi Rose:

Maybe you and I are reading different Bibles! But to say that "Answer C does not really make a lot of sense when one considers the fact that the Old Testament does not deal with immortality or the after life."... Is crazy! The whole after-life issue is started in the garden and the lie of the snake when it says "Ye shall not surely die!" And the reason according to Genesis as to why Adam and Eve were forced out of the garden was that GOD did not want them to eat from the tree of life and live FOREVER! The notion that they could eat one time and live forever does not hold as the tree gave a different fruit each month of the year. And the leaves of the tree "are for the healing of the nations." Revelation 22:2

Hello Mystykal

No we are not reading different Bibles, it is just that most people are unaware that the Old Testament rarely speaks of immortality or the afterlife outside of its mention in Genesis, so apparently it wasn't a very important issue! Another odd thing is that the Garden story is never mentioned in the Old Testament, outside of the first few chapters of Genesis...which begs the question "Adam, where are you hiding?"


So just taking the facts of the STORY the issue of order is not the issue! The day is not made by the sun. But by the rotation of the earth on its axis. You really need to start letting the Book tell its own story! Stop trying to "prove" it right or wrong! The issue is more about why such a book like the Bible has mesmerized people for thousands of years? It does seem strange! However, as you say "If it is the hidden aspects of Scripture that are most important, then 99.999% of all people who have ever lived were and are ignorant of what is most important!" The important stuff IS hidden in the text itself and "few there be that find it."

Namaste,

Mystykal

I said that day is created by the rotation of the earth around the sun, the Bible says day was created when god said "Let there be light" before the sun, moon and stars appeared and calling the dividing of light evening and morning of the first day. If you will notice it is the dividing of light and dark that causes the first day in verse 5, but then in verses 14-18 it says that god put lights in the heavens to give light to the earth and divide day from night and light from darkness.

Gen.1:3-5 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen.1:13-18 And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


If light is divided from darkness causing the first day, why does it need another whole day devoted to making it happen again on the fourth day? Kinda repetitive wouldn't you say.

Take care,
Rose

L67
06-20-2013, 12:57 PM
Hi Rose:
I will try and be a little bit more precise. The order of creation in Genesis is NOT subject to any "laws" of science. Since GOD "did it" your logic in saying that the Bible must follow the ideas as laid out in the big bang model is FALSE. The idea that the sun is the ONLY light source for plants to grow and therefore the Bible IS WRONG - is well just wrong. You see your logic is not based on the same perspective which the Bible contends is the "God model". So your ideas are in opposition to the "Word of GOD". Period. The Bible is not supposed to follow the big bang model. The two perspectives are just that - two different perspectives.

Namaste,

Mystykal


Not subject to any "laws of science"? That's ridiculous. Because you don't know God did it. Christians assert God as all powerful, and yet the Bible portrays him as surprisingly limited in his powers.

Judges 1:19 19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Say what? How can the creator of the universe fail to accomplish such a petty task?

He is also shockingly not all knowing either.

Hosea 8:4 4 They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.

This falls in line with Yahweh being a tribal ward god. Ironically Yahweh is short for " Yahweh Sabaoth" , which means "he who musters armies." http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm

Exodues 15:3 also tells us Yahweh is a man of war. 3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

I won't go any further because it is obvious Yahweh had nothing to do with the creation of anything. The Bible is nothing more than the writings of primitive men.

David M
06-20-2013, 02:55 PM
Hello Rose


Hi David

I'm sure there are many, many Christians who think the order of Genesis is correct because they have no choice if they believe that the Bible is god's word. I know scientists who are Christians and they consider the order of Genesis to be correct. The creation story is correct in the little we are told. It is obvious the Creator does not need to go into detail in order to make known to us the basic origin of life and to say that is was created and did not evolve from nothing all by itself.


How can you possibly say that there is a "logical progression" and "correct order" to the days of creation contained in Genesis? With the few statements that are made, I listed out three HUGE problems: Genesis is absolutely saying that in the beginning the waters covered the earth and that dry land was brought forth afterward from dividing the waters on the second day. Also, day and night (which is caused by the earth orbiting the sun) are ordered on the first day, whereas the sun and stars appear on the fourth day after the plants are created on the third day. The proper logical order should be: sun > earth (dry land) > water > plants and animals. If the biblical god really exists he could have easily conveyed the proper order to primitive man, there is no reason not to. Here is a article you should read about the proper order of Genesis: http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/16/the-key-to-understanding-genesis/ There is nothing wrong in the order God created life upon the earth. You are not able to generate light or heat as God is able to; in act you are powerless to do anything. I am not going to argue over things that are of no real importance. Without God, as an explanation, you obviously have to resort to science to give you all the answers. I do not, and for reasons I have already explained to you and Richard, I have confidence in God's word and that as far as the facts of history are concerned the Bible is a true record. The message of the Bible is of fundamental importance for as Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Tim 3:15) the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


You are correct in saying that generally people cannot accurately predict the future, that is why most of the prophecies in the Bible are wrong (unless words are twisted and contorted to try and make them say something other than what is written), because the Bible was written by men. Of course you know I have completely the opposite view of the Bible that you do. It is not because people cannot predict when things mentioned in prophecies will take place that means the prophecies are wrong. The prophecies are correct and we just do not always interpret them correctly or forecast the dates correctly. It is impossible in light of what Jesus said; no man knoweth the day or the hour Many prophecies have been fulfilled and there are prophecies even now that are being fulfilled. Of course you can reject all the evidence, but your rejection does not change the facts.



It is not the job of science to try and prove the Bible wrong or right, the job of science is to interpret the evidence and make conclusions based on that evidence. Science is self correcting, if an hypothesis doesn't hold up it is trashed, because knowledge cannot be based on falsehoods which don't hold up (airplanes don't fly and computers don't compute based on false knowledge). Whereas, the job of Bible believers is to make the Bible appear truthful and correct no matter what lengths they must go to in justifying its words. it is this fact that science does change its hypotheses as new information comes about that proves that science can still change. Science is still looking for answers and there is no certainty that science will find all the answers. it does not really matter since science is not going to prevent me from dying or able to make me live for ever. With a future like this at stake, it does not matter to me what science finds our or not. The reliability of God's word is what is important. The fact that many Churches disagree on what the Bible teaches is not the fault of the Bible, it is the fault of man. There simply is not the number of errors in the Bible that you say there are. And it is not twisting or words to get to the Bible to say what I want it to. Many of the errors in the Bible have been introduced by the translators and copyists. Words have been inserted and omitted from the original texts which leads to error and confusion. I do not let one or two strange verses distract me from the abundance of passages confirming the consistent message. The additions and subtractions have slowly come to light and when the original text is examined (as far to the original as we can get) many of the problems introduced into the Bible are solved and eliminated. Of course you can reject all these findings and stick to your own opinion of the Bible, but it is not an opinion I share.

You say; "airplanes don't fly and computers don't compute based on false knowledge"; you don't know the man-made faults that are built into aircraft and computers that often go unnoticed for years. Airplanes might be the safest form of transport. The theory of flight is sound, but when you analyse the number of aircraft failures, they are generally the fault of man, which could have been avoided. Regardless of all the safety procedures and checking procedures, the weakest link is man. If I have to put my trust in man or God, then I choose God every time.

All the best
David

Rose
06-21-2013, 04:36 PM
Hello Rose

I know scientists who are Christians and they consider the order of Genesis to be correct. The creation story is correct in the little we are told. It is obvious the Creator does not need to go into detail in order to make known to us the basic origin of life and to say that is was created and did not evolve from nothing all by itself.

There is nothing wrong in the order God created life upon the earth. You are not able to generate light or heat as God is able to; in act you are powerless to do anything. I am not going to argue over things that are of no real importance. Without God, as an explanation, you obviously have to resort to science to give you all the answers. I do not, and for reasons I have already explained to you and Richard, I have confidence in God's word and that as far as the facts of history are concerned the Bible is a true record. The message of the Bible is of fundamental importance for as Paul wrote to Timothy (2 Tim 3:15) the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Hi David

No legitimate scientist would ever say the order of creation in Genesis is correct, because it's not. The earth did not begin by being covered in water, dry land did not emerge out of the oceans, plants which are living organisms did not evolve before their was sunlight, and the sun and stars were formed before the earth not after the earth.






it is this fact that science does change its hypotheses as new information comes about that proves that science can still change. Science is still looking for answers and there is no certainty that science will find all the answers. it does not really matter since science is not going to prevent me from dying or able to make me live for ever. With a future like this at stake, it does not matter to me what science finds our or not. The reliability of God's word is what is important. The fact that many Churches disagree on what the Bible teaches is not the fault of the Bible, it is the fault of man. There simply is not the number of errors in the Bible that you say there are. And it is not twisting or words to get to the Bible to say what I want it to. Many of the errors in the Bible have been introduced by the translators and copyists. Words have been inserted and omitted from the original texts which leads to error and confusion. I do not let one or two strange verses distract me from the abundance of passages confirming the consistent message. The additions and subtractions have slowly come to light and when the original text is examined (as far to the original as we can get) many of the problems introduced into the Bible are solved and eliminated. Of course you can reject all these findings and stick to your own opinion of the Bible, but it is not an opinion I share.

Science is indeed still looking for answers and is open to correct itself when proven wrong, which is in contrast to the Bible that can never be changed no matter how wrong it is. How can you say the Bible is reliable when it is continually shown to be wrong? If the Bible had one error it would be too many, but we all know that it has many more than that.


You say; "airplanes don't fly and computers don't compute based on false knowledge"; you don't know the man-made faults that are built into aircraft and computers that often go unnoticed for years. Airplanes might be the safest form of transport. The theory of flight is sound, but when you analyse the number of aircraft failures, they are generally the fault of man, which could have been avoided. Regardless of all the safety procedures and checking procedures, the weakest link is man. If I have to put my trust in man or God, then I choose God every time.

All the best
David

Just because man makes faulty machinery doesn't mean the logic behind it is faulty. If the logic was faulty the plane would never get off the ground, the computer would not compute properly, and medicines wouldn't heal people. The biblical method to cure diseases is to pray the demons out, which we all know doesn't work that is why up until antibiotics were discovered people died of infections and no amount of prayer helped them.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
06-21-2013, 11:07 PM
Hello Mystykal

No we are not reading different Bibles, it is just that most people are unaware that the Old Testament rarely speaks of immortality or the afterlife outside of its mention in Genesis, so apparently it wasn't a very important issue! Another odd thing is that the Garden story is never mentioned in the Old Testament, outside of the first few chapters of Genesis...which begs the question "Adam, where are you hiding?"



I said that day is created by the rotation of the earth around the sun, the Bible says day was created when god said "Let there be light" before the sun, moon and stars appeared and calling the dividing of light evening and morning of the first day. If you will notice it is the dividing of light and dark that causes the first day in verse 5, but then in verses 14-18 it says that god put lights in the heavens to give light to the earth and divide day from night and light from darkness.

Gen.1:3-5 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Gen.1:13-18 And the evening and the morning were the third day. And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.


If light is divided from darkness causing the first day, why does it need another whole day devoted to making it happen again on the fourth day? Kinda repetitive wouldn't you say.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I am sure your statement is not what you intend to say! You said, "I said that day is created by the rotation of the earth around the sun,..."

The scientific fact is the earth day is NOT the earth going around the sun but rather the earth turning on its own axis! YOU DO NOT NEED THE SUN to create a day! Never mind that the sun may have been there all along before the third day or the fifth day or whatever since it says "He made the stars also. The sun IS a star! And the stars were made even BEFORE the world was formed!!! YOU really need to stop trying to act like you are reading the Bible in any coherent way. You are just trying to pick a fight with the writers/translators! It's not rocket science! Just understand the Bible is NOT written as a scientific book. It is a book full of magic! The mysterious power which so many think is only evil. The Bible is a guide to the other side...

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
06-22-2013, 02:41 AM
Hello Rose


Hi David

No legitimate scientist would ever say the order of creation in Genesis is correct, because it's not. The earth did not begin by being covered in water, dry land did not emerge out of the oceans, plants which are living organisms did not evolve before their was sunlight, and the sun and stars were formed before the earth not after the earth. Mystykal has already answered this point and from what the Bible actually states we are in agreement. In addition to this, the creation story is never likely to align 100% with science. You expect creation to fall in line with evolution to support the theory of evolution. Miracles are outside that of science so any miracle is never going to be confirmed by science. Initially a day would be as long as it took God to create all the things he did in one day. How fast does God work? When miracles of healing or things like the resurrection of Lazarus, things happened almost instantaneously. God is operating at a level that is outside science and what God can do, science will never achieve. Man is in a bubble that he will never get outside.


Science is indeed still looking for answers and is open to correct itself when proven wrong, which is in contrast to the Bible that can never be changed no matter how wrong it is. How can you say the Bible is reliable when it is continually shown to be wrong? If the Bible had one error it would be too many, but we all know that it has many more than that. I know that and I have just posted (before this) a quoted in which scientists have admitted that what they have just found, might make them have to rethink established science. The Bible is less wrong than you say it is. You do not look for answers to the problems you say there are and when I give you an answer to a problem, you do not accept it. If you put your head in the sand and not look for the answers that are there, then you remain fixed in your unfounded belief that science will eventually have all the answers. And when it does have all the answers it can get, where does that get any of us?


Just because man makes faulty machinery doesn't mean the logic behind it is faulty. If the logic was faulty the plane would never get off the ground, the computer would not compute properly, and medicines wouldn't heal people. The biblical method to cure diseases is to pray the demons out, which we all know doesn't work that is why up until antibiotics were discovered people died of infections and no amount of prayer helped them. Man's logic is not 100% accurate and nothing man can do is perfect. Those imperfections which we can call mistakes lead to the problems and disasters which are man's fault. You must not lay the blame on God when it is clearly man's fault.
As for praying to get rid of demons. Show me one example, when Jesus failed to rid a person of demons. Jesus proves everything you say is wrong. Jesus invariably prayed to his Heavenly Father before performing miracles. Even though the power of God was made available to him, he never took that power for granted; Jesus said; Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, God does not always answer prayers and this is a subject of its own. Jesus healed people without using antibiotics and the healing by Jesus was instantaneous and complete.

All the best

David

Rose
06-22-2013, 07:58 AM
Hi Rose:

I am sure your statement is not what you intend to say! You said, "I said that day is created by the rotation of the earth around the sun,..."

The scientific fact is the earth day is NOT the earth going around the sun but rather the earth turning on its own axis! YOU DO NOT NEED THE SUN to create a day! Never mind that the sun may have been there all along before the third day or the fifth day or whatever since it says "He made the stars also. The sun IS a star! And the stars were made even BEFORE the world was formed!!! YOU really need to stop trying to act like you are reading the Bible in any coherent way. You are just trying to pick a fight with the writers/translators! It's not rocket science! Just understand the Bible is NOT written as a scientific book. It is a book full of magic! The mysterious power which so many think is only evil. The Bible is a guide to the other side...

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hi Mystykal

Yes, of course, the separation of day and night are created by the earth turning on its axis, but my point is that without the sun there would be NO LIGHT to make day. I think if the biblical authors had thought the sun was already created before the earth that is what they would have said, just because you know better now doesn't have anything to do with what the writers thought. The Bible was written from primitive minds that were trying to piece together the workings of nature with a very limited understanding.

If people want to claim that the Bible is the word of god then it should be written in a way that is coherent and factual, otherwise it is just a mythological story book. How can the Bible be trusted as a guide to the other side when it is full of erroneous statements?

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
06-22-2013, 09:16 AM
Hello Richard
What are the errors and inconsistencies that would cause me to have a double standard. I expect science to tell me the origin to the universe I can believe or else I accept the Bible explanation. Errors in God's word involving what happened to Israel or to do with with prophecy has nothing to do with science of creation which is at the heart of this discussion.

Hey there David,

How is it that you could pretend you don't know about the "errors and inconsistencies" in the Bible? I've shared many of them with you many times in this forum. Most relevant to our current discussion is the ancient mythological cosmology that is found throughout the Bible, beginning, of course, in Genesis. The Bible teaches that the we live in a three-tiered universe with of a flat earth held up by pillars with water below and waters above that are held up by a dome. Here is an article from the conservative Christian think-tank called www.Biologos.org (http://www.biologos.org/) that explains the ancient mythological cosmology of the Bible: Mesopotamian Cosmic Geography in the Bible. (http://biologos.org/blog/mesopotamian-cosmic-geography-in-the-bible-part-3) It quotes lots of Scripture. I think they give good support for there conclusion.

http://biologos.org/uploads/static-content/godawa_3_1.jpg

This is the worldview that folks would get just by reading the Bible.

Now there is a great irony in your rejection of science as "uncertain" and your acceptance of the Bible as giving you "certainty" because believers constantly change their interpretation of the Bible to conform to SCIENCE! :lol:

For example, many Bible believers rejected the idea that the earth was a planet that moved through space because the Bible explicitly states that "the world is established, so that it cannot be moved" (Psalm 93:1). Now think about this. It doesn't matter if you say that the verse was "misinterpreted." The point is that the only way we could ever know the truth about the world is by SCIENCE that guided us to understand that the earth is a planet that moves through space. This is why the Bible is not a reliable guide. It's nothing but a pile of ambiguous words that everyone disagrees about and there is no way to actually TEST which interpretation is correct, except by science, of course.

You really need to think about this. Suppose science proved that the earth really was flat and there really was a dome holding up the waters that were "above." Christians would be using those scientific results to PROVE that the Bible was inspired.


There are not so many errors or problems you say there are and the few errors and problems that remain, do not affect the integrity of the Bible. There is a consistent message, when all of the Bible is taken into account, and this outweighs any of the few difficult passages to understand.
God is trustworthy and keeps to his word. That is what the Bible reveals, but answering a soundbite from you in a few words is not going to prove this point here and s I suggest any specific points you want to discuss about this are dealt with in a new thread.
All the best
David
I agree that there is a consistent message, but the funny thing is that you and I disagree about what that message actually says! So again, we see that the Bible is not a reliable guide for anything because it is just a pile of ambiguous words that every one interprets differently and there is no way for anyone to prove who is right or wrong. And that's why your illusion that you have "certainty" about your interpretations is so delusional. You hold to fringe doctrines that the vast majority of INTELLIGENT and INFORMED Bible believers disagree with. So why would you have any "confidence" that your fringe beliefs are true? If every agrees that the sky is blue, but you say that it is green, then maybe it would be a little nuts to claim that you have "certainty" that the sky is really green. Maybe a little humility would serve you better.

Your assertion that "God is trustworthy" makes no sense to me. What do you mean by "trustworthy"? Tell me one thing that you can actually TRUST God to do. If he were half as trustworthy as the average dentist there would be no debate about his existence. It appears you have emptied the word "trustworthy" of all meaning.

All the best,

Richard

Rose
06-22-2013, 09:21 AM
Hello Rose

Mystykal has already answered this point and from what the Bible actually states we are in agreement. In addition to this, the creation story is never likely to align 100% with science. You expect creation to fall in line with evolution to support the theory of evolution. Miracles are outside that of science so any miracle is never going to be confirmed by science. Initially a day would be as long as it took God to create all the things he did in one day. How fast does God work? When miracles of healing or things like the resurrection of Lazarus, things happened almost instantaneously. God is operating at a level that is outside science and what God can do, science will never achieve. Man is in a bubble that he will never get outside.
Hi David

Like I said to Mystykal, the Bible was written from the minds of primitive men, who were trying to piece together the way in which nature works and its order from a very limited understanding. If the Bible was inspired by god I would expect it to align with the facts of science. In the creation story the term day is used in its normal sense, being split from night to make a complete period of one cycle. The only reason Christians feel the need to extend the length of time for the "creation days" is because nothing fits with the scientific model, which shows how creationist's are constantly trying to make the Bible fit with science.



I know that and I have just posted (before this) a quoted in which scientists have admitted that what they have just found, might make them have to rethink established science. The Bible is less wrong than you say it is. You do not look for answers to the problems you say there are and when I give you an answer to a problem, you do not accept it. If you put your head in the sand and not look for the answers that are there, then you remain fixed in your unfounded belief that science will eventually have all the answers. And when it does have all the answers it can get, where does that get any of us?

What you said about the Bible being "Less wrong" pretty much says it all. If the Bible is wrong at all it shows that it cannot be trusted, people cannot be expected to discern error from fact, consequently it becomes worthless as a guide to truth.


Man's logic is not 100% accurate and nothing man can do is perfect. Those imperfections which we can call mistakes lead to the problems and disasters which are man's fault. You must not lay the blame on God when it is clearly man's fault.
As for praying to get rid of demons. Show me one example, when Jesus failed to rid a person of demons. Jesus proves everything you say is wrong. Jesus invariably prayed to his Heavenly Father before performing miracles. Even though the power of God was made available to him, he never took that power for granted; Jesus said; Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, God does not always answer prayers and this is a subject of its own. Jesus healed people without using antibiotics and the healing by Jesus was instantaneous and complete.

All the best

David

We don't even know for sure if Jesus ever even existed, let alone performed any miracles...it's all just words in a book - no proof. There has never been one documented case of a person being healed by having a demon exorcised from them - there's no proof that demons exist. The onus is on the person claiming the miracle to prove it happened, never the other way around. Words written in a book are not acceptable proof of anything. Words must be always backed up with a demonstration, that is why the Bible says Jesus performed miracles so the people could see them, but the big problem with that is all we have is a book that tells us what he did - no proof.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
06-23-2013, 12:41 AM
Hi Mystykal

Yes, of course, the separation of day and night are created by the earth turning on its axis, but my point is that without the sun there would be NO LIGHT to make day. I think if the biblical authors had thought the sun was already created before the earth that is what they would have said, just because you know better now doesn't have anything to do with what the writers thought. The Bible was written from primitive minds that were trying to piece together the workings of nature with a very limited understanding.

If people want to claim that the Bible is the word of god then it should be written in a way that is coherent and factual, otherwise it is just a mythological story book. How can the Bible be trusted as a guide to the other side when it is full of erroneous statements?

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

From the stories that Jesus taught on the "hidden" treasure - it is clear that the Bible is the dirt and the words are the stony ground. All of that must be dug up so that the "pearl of great price" might be found. Again I remind you GOD said, "You will find me when you search for me with ALL of your heart!"

As far as light for the earth without the sun... "With GOD is all light and no shodow of turning"... So since GOD was present at the creation of the world HE could have been the light! The Bible writers are not scientists and GOD is NOT writing the BIBLE! He is "inspiring" people to do that. Some of the people may have been less than ignorant about some things.... That is not GOD's fault.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-23-2013, 11:26 AM
Hi Rose:

From the stories that Jesus taught on the "hidden" treasure - it is clear that the Bible is the dirt and the words are the stony ground. All of that must be dug up so that the "pearl of great price" might be found. Again I remind you GOD said, "You will find me when you search for me with ALL of your heart!"

Hi Mystykal

I spent a lot of years as a Christian searching and believing in god with all my heart, but nowhere did I find the kind of treasure that has been revealed to me once I opened my eyes to see the world as it really is. I have the advantage of having seen both sides and I feel much freer now experiencing the fulness of life.


As far as light for the earth without the sun... "With GOD is all light and no shodow of turning"... So since GOD was present at the creation of the world HE could have been the light! The Bible writers are not scientists and GOD is NOT writing the BIBLE! He is "inspiring" people to do that. Some of the people may have been less than ignorant about some things.... That is not GOD's fault.

Namaste,

Mystykal


If the Bible god is the omnipotent being that you believe he is, then he should have no trouble "inspiring" people to write his words correctly. People do not have to be scientists to take proper dictation, it should be no more difficult for god to reveal correct scientific facts versus erroneous ones.

Take care,
Rose

L67
06-23-2013, 02:46 PM
.
As for praying to get rid of demons. Show me one example, when Jesus failed to rid a person of demons. Jesus proves everything you say is wrong. Jesus invariably prayed to his Heavenly Father before performing miracles. Even though the power of God was made available to him, he never took that power for granted; Jesus said; Father, I thank thee that thou hast heard me. And I knew that thou hearest me always: but because of the people which stand by I said it, God does not always answer prayers and this is a subject of its own. Jesus healed people without using antibiotics and the healing by Jesus was instantaneous and complete.

All the best

David

I'll show you one example. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/markauthor.html

926


Another mistake occurred in the episode on the healing of the demoniac. This incident occurred in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. Mark 5:1 makes Jesus cross the Sea of Galilee to reach Gerasa, implying that Gerasa was a city close to the lake:

Mark 5:1
They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[c]

Similarly in Mark 5:13 Jesus allowed the demons to leave the man and enter the herd of pigs nearby which then rushed headlong over a precipice into the lake:

Mark 5:13
He [Jesus] gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

From these readings it is obvious that Mark meant Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. However look at the map again. Gerasa is more than fifty kilometers to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee!! There is not even a hint of any lake nearby.[d] As the Biblical scholars of Jesus Seminar so deliciously remarked:

Gerasa is located approximately thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, not exactly a convenient location for the drowning of the pigs. Matthew relocates the demoniac to Gadara, which is only six miles from the lakeshore. Later scribes tried other remedies to accomodate the pigs.[7]


It would be impossible for Jesus to accomplish what Mark said he did. Mark placed the drowning of the pigs 30 miles out in the middle of nowhere. There is no way an eyewitness could screw the location up that bad. And Mathew tries to correct Marks mistake and still we have a distance far off. Now we have two gospels that contradict each other. This is only one of many many contradictions between the gospels.

Mystykal
06-24-2013, 04:59 AM
Hi Mystykal

I spent a lot of years as a Christian searching and believing in god with all my heart, but nowhere did I find the kind of treasure that has been revealed to me once I opened my eyes to see the world as it really is. I have the advantage of having seen both sides and I feel much freer now experiencing the fulness of life.




If the Bible god is the omnipotent being that you believe he is, then he should have no trouble "inspiring" people to write his words correctly. People do not have to be scientists to take proper dictation, it should be no more difficult for god to reveal correct scientific facts versus erroneous ones.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

Let me repeat... GOD is not trying to write a science book out of the Bible. The purposes of GOD in using people to write "inspired" ideas into words and language is beyond me to fully understand. If you read the story of Baalam GOD spoke through the DONKEY! So as Jesus said, "If you shut up the children, the rocks will cry out!" GOD is not in the business of writing a scientific book. The mystery of immortality is the reason for the season! The whole purpose of any belief system is to reveal the magical process whereby man is saved eternally. PERIOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
06-24-2013, 06:09 AM
I'll show you one example. http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/markauthor.html

926


Another mistake occurred in the episode on the healing of the demoniac. This incident occurred in the region of the Gerasenes, or Gerasa. Mark 5:1 makes Jesus cross the Sea of Galilee to reach Gerasa, implying that Gerasa was a city close to the lake:

Mark 5:1
They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[c]

Similarly in Mark 5:13 Jesus allowed the demons to leave the man and enter the herd of pigs nearby which then rushed headlong over a precipice into the lake:

Mark 5:13
He [Jesus] gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

From these readings it is obvious that Mark meant Gerasa to be a town situated near the Sea of Galilee. However look at the map again. Gerasa is more than fifty kilometers to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee!! There is not even a hint of any lake nearby.[d] As the Biblical scholars of Jesus Seminar so deliciously remarked:

Gerasa is located approximately thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee, not exactly a convenient location for the drowning of the pigs. Matthew relocates the demoniac to Gadara, which is only six miles from the lakeshore. Later scribes tried other remedies to accomodate the pigs.[7]


It would be impossible for Jesus to accomplish what Mark said he did. Mark placed the drowning of the pigs 30 miles out in the middle of nowhere. There is no way an eyewitness could screw the location up that bad. And Mathew tries to correct Marks mistake and still we have a distance far off. Now we have two gospels that contradict each other. This is only one of many many contradictions between the gospels.

This is not proof that Jesus did not cast out demons. Apparent errors in the geographical names and locations is not proof Jesus did not cast out demons. The apparent inaccuracies or errors between the gospels are usually reconciled where there is a will to do so. A comparison of the Gospels and there differences is a separate subject and is best tackled in a separate thread.


David

L67
06-24-2013, 06:29 AM
This is not proof that Jesus did not cast out demons. Apparent errors in the geographical names and locations is not proof Jesus did not cast out demons. The apparent inaccuracies or errors between the gospels are usually reconciled where there is a will to do so. A comparison of the Gospels and there differences is a separate subject and is best tackled in a separate thread.


David

No it's proof Mark was writing fiction. It also shows it was NOT divinely inspired.


How do you reconcile the huge error on Marks part? And then how do you explain Mathew contradicting Mark by trying to correct his mistake? Which he still failed to do.

David M
06-24-2013, 06:53 AM
Hi David

Like I said to Mystykal, the Bible was written from the minds of primitive men, who were trying to piece together the way in which nature works and its order from a very limited understanding. If the Bible was inspired by god I would expect it to align with the facts of science. In the creation story the term day is used in its normal sense, being split from night to make a complete period of one cycle. The only reason Christians feel the need to extend the length of time for the "creation days" is because nothing fits with the scientific model, which shows how creationist's are constantly trying to make the Bible fit with science.
Hello Rose
Man has not advanced at all by way of nature in 6,000 years. He was not primitive 4,000 years ago; just lacking is scientific understanding and technology. I do not think man was any less capable of learning 4,000 years ago. The men who were inspired did not have to be super-intelligent. The wisdom is in the inspired words that are God's. You can look at all the errors that have been introduced from the very first written document and from that point the errors are man's fault. We are in a position now to correct errors and that I do and I accept the correction made by others. If you do not accept the corrections then you are deliberately remaining blind. If you had gained as much that there is to be gained from understanding all the Bible, you would not be saying that your present freedom in science has given you more understanding. Science has not answered the most fundamental of questions.





What you said about the Bible being "Less wrong" pretty much says it all. If the Bible is wrong at all it shows that it cannot be trusted, people cannot be expected to discern error from fact, consequently it becomes worthless as a guide to truth. If we put the Bible on trial, then the Bible has to be assumed not guilty until proven guilty. Based on what I know of the Bible, I can be certain that God's word is correct. The Bible is not a worthless guide. It is meant to guide us to salvation and eternal life. Science will never trump that.


We don't even know for sure if Jesus ever even existed, let alone performed any miracles...it's all just words in a book - no proof. There has never been one documented case of a person being healed by having a demon exorcised from them - there's no proof that demons exist. The onus is on the person claiming the miracle to prove it happened, never the other way around. Words written in a book are not acceptable proof of anything. Words must be always backed up with a demonstration, that is why the Bible says Jesus performed miracles so the people could see them, but the big problem with that is all we have is a book that tells us what he did - no proof. There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus existed. Even if not as much evidence as we might have expected, the evidence is there. Only yesterday, I heard reference to the Babylonian Talmud (Rabbinic commentaries) which mentions that on the eve of the passover they hanged Yeshu [Jesus] The authorities were hostile to this man who was said to practice sorcery and false teaching. They had 40 days in which to clear his name...
I think you and I know both know that demons have a medical explanation these days and in the same way we must bring the explanation of Satan, The Devil, The Serpent into a 21st century context.

We have the eye witness proof of the day that is written down. It might appear second-hand but it is valid. This is why doubting Thomas or more precisely skeptical Thomas had to see for himself the marks in Jesus' hands and for Thomas to put his hand in his side. Jesus said; blessed are those that believe and have not seen. I do not have to see for myself whey I have reliable written evidence from first-hand witnesses. Paul said that Jesus was seen of 500 hundred after Jesus was risen from the dead and many of those 500 were still alive to be questioned about it.
There has never been a good reason for the disappearance of the body of Jesus. The most likely cause that the disciples stole the body has to be rejected in the final analysis.

I think the burden of proof is equally upon those who do not believe these things to have happened to prove beyond doubt that they did not.

Once God is in the scene, it has to be accepted that God is overriding the natural laws in order to create things from their component elements. We are in the realms of being outside the laws that govern the universe. Creation could happen slowly or fast depending on how we want to look at things. We are outside the realms of science and it does not make sense to limit God to any time. The sun and moon were set to be for seasons and for times and that was to apply once man was created and he would live by those times and seasons. The Bible tells us the "Why" and not the "How". Science can tell us the how; and so we know why the seasons happen. What science cannot predict is when the Barley will ripen in Israel and so determine the start of the new year. This is working to God's calendar and not the pagan calendar that we have today.

All the best

David

Rose
06-25-2013, 01:30 PM
Hi Rose:

Let me repeat... GOD is not trying to write a science book out of the Bible. The purposes of GOD in using people to write "inspired" ideas into words and language is beyond me to fully understand. If you read the story of Baalam GOD spoke through the DONKEY! So as Jesus said, "If you shut up the children, the rocks will cry out!" GOD is not in the business of writing a scientific book.

Hi Mystykal

Let me repeat...the Bible doesn't have to be a science book for god to get the facts right! You are just making up reasons and excuses as to why the Bible is WRONG. Just because the Bible has a story about a talking donkey doesn't mean it's true. You say that god isn't in the business of writing a scientific book...if there is a god you don't know what business he's in. If the Bible god was real he could just as easily have inspired a book that was correct as one that is wrong.


The mystery of immortality is the reason for the season! The whole purpose of any belief system is to reveal the magical process whereby man is saved eternally. PERIOD.

Namaste,

Mystykal

Again, belief systems are made by humans for a variety of reasons, but mostly they are for the purposes of explaining things people don't understand and as a means to control others. Things are only mysterious until we understand them and then they become normal. If you took a cell phone back to the first century everyone would have thought you were a god with magical powers.

Take care,
Rose

L67
06-25-2013, 05:55 PM
Hello Rose
Man has not advanced at all by way of nature in 6,000 years. He was not primitive 4,000 years ago; just lacking is scientific understanding and technology.

Not true at all. Man kind is not only less violent today, but morally superior in every way to that of biblical times.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ramBFRt1Uzk


The men who were inspired did not have to be super-intelligent. The wisdom is in the inspired words that are God's. You can look at all the errors that have been introduced from the very first written document and from that point the errors are man's fault. We are in a position now to correct errors and that I do and I accept the correction made by others. If you do not accept the corrections then you are deliberately remaining blind. If you had gained as much that there is to be gained from understanding all the Bible, you would not be saying that your present freedom in science has given you more understanding. Science has not answered the most fundamental of questions.

You're asserting your opinion David. You have no idea how much the Bible has been tampered with. You also have no idea which books of the Bible belong or which verses were added later. Case in point: Mark had a better ending inserted at a later time. It is absurd to think you can correct the errors within the Bible. Some of those errors and contradictions cannot be resolved. I could list many problems in the Bible that are no solvable by any amount of word twisting.



If we put the Bible on trial, then the Bible has to be assumed not guilty until proven guilty. Based on what I know of the Bible, I can be certain that God's word is correct. The Bible is not a worthless guide. It is meant to guide us to salvation and eternal life. Science will never trump that.

The Bible convicts itself to be guilty David. We know that the Bibles wrong on many many points. We know there was no flood, Adam & Eve, flat earth, talking snakes, the exodus, etc...


There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus existed. Even if not as much evidence as we might have expected, the evidence is there. Only yesterday, I heard reference to the Babylonian Talmud (Rabbinic commentaries) which mentions that on the eve of the passover they hanged Yeshu [Jesus] The authorities were hostile to this man who was said to practice sorcery and false teaching. They had 40 days in which to clear his name...
I think you and I know both know that demons have a medical explanation these days and in the same way we must bring the explanation of Satan, The Devil, The Serpent into a 21st century context.

What evidence? Could you please post this evidence?

Demons didn't always represent sickness David. Mark 5 clearly depicts the demons as speaking and needed to be expelled into a herd of pigs. Now if the author didn't believe in literal demons, then why would he portray sickness as talking and needing expelled into pigs? We certainly don't do that nonsense when we cure disease today.


We have the eye witness proof of the day that is written down. It might appear second-hand but it is valid. This is why doubting Thomas or more precisely skeptical Thomas had to see for himself the marks in Jesus' hands and for Thomas to put his hand in his side. Jesus said; blessed are those that believe and have not seen. I do not have to see for myself whey I have reliable written evidence from first-hand witnesses. Paul said that Jesus was seen of 500 hundred after Jesus was risen from the dead and many of those 500 were still alive to be questioned about it.
There has never been a good reason for the disappearance of the body of Jesus. The most likely cause that the disciples stole the body has to be rejected in the final analysis.

I'm sorry David but the gospels are NOT eye witness proof. They agree on very little and outright contradict each other. Neither was Paul a witness. Also, if you do any studying on the whole 500 story Paul told you would see that it was most likely added at a later date to add credibility to the claims.


I think the burden of proof is equally upon those who do not believe these things to have happened to prove beyond doubt that they did not.

NO, I'm afraid not David. Christians make the claims therefore it is their responsibilty to support it


Once God is in the scene, it has to be accepted that God is overriding the natural laws in order to create things from their component elements. We are in the realms of being outside the laws that govern the universe. Creation could happen slowly or fast depending on how we want to look at things. We are outside the realms of science and it does not make sense to limit God to any time. The sun and moon were set to be for seasons and for times and that was to apply once man was created and he would live by those times and seasons. The Bible tells us the "Why" and not the "How". Science can tell us the how; and so we know why the seasons happen. What science cannot predict is when the Barley will ripen in Israel and so determine the start of the new year. This is working to God's calendar and not the pagan calendar that we have today.

This is all wishful thinking on your part. As far as we know the world has always operated by the natural laws. No evidence that any natural laws were ever suspended in order for God to work.

Rose
06-25-2013, 07:12 PM
Hello Rose
Man has not advanced at all by way of nature in 6,000 years. He was not primitive 4,000 years ago; just lacking is scientific understanding and technology. I do not think man was any less capable of learning 4,000 years ago. The men who were inspired did not have to be super-intelligent. The wisdom is in the inspired words that are God's. You can look at all the errors that have been introduced from the very first written document and from that point the errors are man's fault. We are in a position now to correct errors and that I do and I accept the correction made by others. If you do not accept the corrections then you are deliberately remaining blind. If you had gained as much that there is to be gained from understanding all the Bible, you would not be saying that your present freedom in science has given you more understanding. Science has not answered the most fundamental of questions.

Hello David,

If the Bible god truly exists why couldn't he have inspired those primitive minds with words that were true, instead of false?




If we put the Bible on trial, then the Bible has to be assumed not guilty until proven guilty. Based on what I know of the Bible, I can be certain that God's word is correct. The Bible is not a worthless guide. It is meant to guide us to salvation and eternal life. Science will never trump that.

The Bible is a worthless guide, because it cannot be trusted to contain truth, and has led people over the centuries to do nothing but squabble over its meaning.


There is sufficient evidence to show that Jesus existed. Even if not as much evidence as we might have expected, the evidence is there. Only yesterday, I heard reference to the Babylonian Talmud (Rabbinic commentaries) which mentions that on the eve of the passover they hanged Yeshu [Jesus] The authorities were hostile to this man who was said to practice sorcery and false teaching. They had 40 days in which to clear his name...
I think you and I know both know that demons have a medical explanation these days and in the same way we must bring the explanation of Satan, The Devil, The Serpent into a 21st century context.

We have the eye witness proof of the day that is written down. It might appear second-hand but it is valid. This is why doubting Thomas or more precisely skeptical Thomas had to see for himself the marks in Jesus' hands and for Thomas to put his hand in his side. Jesus said; blessed are those that believe and have not seen. I do not have to see for myself whey I have reliable written evidence from first-hand witnesses. Paul said that Jesus was seen of 500 hundred after Jesus was risen from the dead and many of those 500 were still alive to be questioned about it.
There has never been a good reason for the disappearance of the body of Jesus. The most likely cause that the disciples stole the body has to be rejected in the final analysis.

I think the burden of proof is equally upon those who do not believe these things to have happened to prove beyond doubt that they did not.

There is practically no extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, though I do think he probably existed as a Jewish man in the first century. Just because the Bible records the words of men who say Jesus rose from the dead, or performed miracles does not mean those words are true, there is absolutely no proof that even one miracle in the Bible happened.

The burden of proof is never on the skeptic, rather it is always on the person who makes the claim. If I make a claim that I saw a little blue alien, it would be required of me to show evidence for my assertion.


Once God is in the scene, it has to be accepted that God is overriding the natural laws in order to create things from their component elements. We are in the realms of being outside the laws that govern the universe. Creation could happen slowly or fast depending on how we want to look at things. We are outside the realms of science and it does not make sense to limit God to any time. The sun and moon were set to be for seasons and for times and that was to apply once man was created and he would live by those times and seasons. The Bible tells us the "Why" and not the "How". Science can tell us the how; and so we know why the seasons happen. What science cannot predict is when the Barley will ripen in Israel and so determine the start of the new year. This is working to God's calendar and not the pagan calendar that we have today.

All the best

David

If god created the natural laws in the first place why would he need to override them?

Of course science can determine when the barley will ripen just as with any other grain, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Also, calendars are a method of keeping time which has nothing to do with god's calendar versus a pagan calendar.

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
06-28-2013, 04:16 AM
Hi Mystykal

Let me repeat...the Bible doesn't have to be a science book for god to get the facts right! You are just making up reasons and excuses as to why the Bible is WRONG. Just because the Bible has a story about a talking donkey doesn't mean it's true. You say that god isn't in the business of writing a scientific book...if there is a god you don't know what business he's in. If the Bible god was real he could just as easily have inspired a book that was correct as one that is wrong.



Again, belief systems are made by humans for a variety of reasons, but mostly they are for the purposes of explaining things people don't understand and as a means to control others. Things are only mysterious until we understand them and then they become normal. If you took a cell phone back to the first century everyone would have thought you were a god with magical powers.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I really appreciate your words and ideas...I am sorry if I am frustrating you... Not meant to be argumentative with you.
A couple points that I will point out about logic... Your argument about the cell phone making a person look like a god to some mountain man with no scientific training is well put. However, you are ignoring the fact that there is a "mystery" to the Universe which is NEVER going to be understood by humans. And that mystery is GOD! And the way GOD decided to deal with "sin" in a perfect world. The reason you keep attacking my line of thought is because you are so sure that the science of the Big Bang model is verifiable... It is NOT! Of course if you don't look at the evidence that says its NOT verifiable and you continue to ignore large portions of the "contra-scientific" evidence and scientists around the globe - well I really can't help you to see the truth! Some things even after we understand them still are "mysterious". For example the pheromone "love" connection and the sexual attraction between people.... We understand it scientifically but when it happens to a person it is very strange indeed.

I do not agree that "belief systems" are ONLY made by humans. I believe that the laws and systems in science are "Discovered" not made up by scientists. However, the Big Bang model has so many holes in it that I am not even sure it can be called a "system". Your idea that GOD allowed people to "write" a Bible that is "wrong" is laughable. The fact that the Bible and the Big Bang model do NOT agree on anything really, should make us think twice as to the origins of science and question our limited knowledge in relationship to the BIBLE's assertions that the WORDs of GOD CREATED all things in a "magical way" which was outside of the laws which later came to rule the world. In effect, that is what the Bible says! Of course we can ignore that information if we want to... But why?

It just might be that if we take the time to really look at all the information out there, a pattern will emerge which will be able to produce a type of wisdom which is truly Unique and holds to a system which is NOT man-made and actually reflects the character of GOD.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no GOD!" Psalms

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
06-28-2013, 03:48 PM
Hi Rose:

I really appreciate your words and ideas...I am sorry if I am frustrating you... Not meant to be argumentative with you.
A couple points that I will point out about logic... Your argument about the cell phone making a person look like a god to some mountain man with no scientific training is well put. However, you are ignoring the fact that there is a "mystery" to the Universe which is NEVER going to be understood by humans. And that mystery is GOD! And the way GOD decided to deal with "sin" in a perfect world. The reason you keep attacking my line of thought is because you are so sure that the science of the Big Bang model is verifiable... It is NOT! Of course if you don't look at the evidence that says its NOT verifiable and you continue to ignore large portions of the "contra-scientific" evidence and scientists around the globe - well I really can't help you to see the truth! Some things even after we understand them still are "mysterious". For example the pheromone "love" connection and the sexual attraction between people.... We understand it scientifically but when it happens to a person it is very strange indeed. :yo:Mystykal,

I am very much enjoying our conversations, so please continue.

You really have no precedent for making the statement that there is a "mystery" which will never by understood by humans. One by one the things that were considered mysterious to primitive man are being solved, there is no reason to believe that given enough time the "god mystery" will also be solved.

There is no such thing as "sin" it is a made up concept to account for the evil that could not be explained by ancient man. Even if the Big Bang theory were to crumble, another theory will take its place until finally the true origin of the universe will be found. If that origin is discovered to be an intelligence it most certainly WON'T be the Bible god, because humans have evolved to be far more moral and wise than he is.

Saying something is mysterious is far different from it being strange, love may be strange but science understands the hormones behind sexual attraction so it is no longer a mystery. The same holds true for many other things that used to be considered mysterious by primitive minds, but now the mystery is gone because understanding has taken its place.




I do not agree that "belief systems" are ONLY made by humans. I believe that the laws and systems in science are "Discovered" not made up by scientists. However, the Big Bang model has so many holes in it that I am not even sure it can be called a "system". Your idea that GOD allowed people to "write" a Bible that is "wrong" is laughable. The fact that the Bible and the Big Bang model do NOT agree on anything really, should make us think twice as to the origins of science and question our limited knowledge in relationship to the BIBLE's assertions that the WORDs of GOD CREATED all things in a "magical way" which was outside of the laws which later came to rule the world. In effect, that is what the Bible says! Of course we can ignore that information if we want to... But why?

So far all "belief" systems that I am aware of are man-made and in no manner manifest naturally. Science is not considered a "belief" system, but rather an evidence based system of discovery. It's not my idea about god allowing people to write the Bible, I don't even think god exists! My belief is that men created the idea of god in their own minds to explain things that they didn't understand. Why would anyone blindly believe words written in an ancient book with not one shred of evidence to back up anything it says? And why would a god who supposedly created the laws of nature have to turn around and suspend those very laws in order to create the universe? It makes no sense.


It just might be that if we take the time to really look at all the information out there, a pattern will emerge which will be able to produce a type of wisdom which is truly Unique and holds to a system which is NOT man-made and actually reflects the character of GOD.

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no GOD!" Psalms

Namaste,

Mystykal

Most everything that exists is NOT man-made, rather they are made by the forces of nature. We don't need god to explain the workings of the universe, because positing god only pushes the question back one step. Your mentioning a system which reflects the character of god has me puzzled...where in nature do you find a template for the character of god?

It could just as easily be said: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is a god'" which in turn keeps him from pursuing exploration and discovery of the world around him.

Take care my friend,
Rose

Mystykal
06-29-2013, 05:02 AM
:yo:Mystykal,

I am very much enjoying our conversations, so please continue.

You really have no precedent for making the statement that there is a "mystery" which will never by understood by humans. One by one the things that were considered mysterious to primitive man are being solved, there is no reason to believe that given enough time the "god mystery" will also be solved.

There is no such thing as "sin" it is a made up concept to account for the evil that could not be explained by ancient man. Even if the Big Bang theory were to crumble, another theory will take its place until finally the true origin of the universe will be found. If that origin is discovered to be an intelligence it most certainly WON'T be the Bible god, because humans have evolved to be far more moral and wise than he is.

Saying something is mysterious is far different from it being strange, love may be strange but science understands the hormones behind sexual attraction so it is no longer a mystery. The same holds true for many other things that used to be considered mysterious by primitive minds, but now the mystery is gone because understanding has taken its place.





So far all "belief" systems that I am aware of are man-made and in no manner manifest naturally. Science is not considered a "belief" system, but rather an evidence based system of discovery. It's not my idea about god allowing people to write the Bible, I don't even think god exists! My belief is that men created the idea of god in their own minds to explain things that they didn't understand. Why would anyone blindly believe words written in an ancient book with not one shred of evidence to back up anything it says? And why would a god who supposedly created the laws of nature have to turn around and suspend those very laws in order to create the universe? It makes no sense.



Most everything that exists is NOT man-made, rather they are made by the forces of nature. We don't need god to explain the workings of the universe, because positing god only pushes the question back one step. Your mentioning a system which reflects the character of god has me puzzled...where in nature do you find a template for the character of god?

It could just as easily be said: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is a god'" which in turn keeps him from pursuing exploration and discovery of the world around him.

Take care my friend,
Rose

Hi Rose:

I really do not want to insult you! Really! But...

You said, "One by one the things that were considered mysterious to primitive man are being solved, there is no reason to believe that given enough time the "god mystery" will also be solved.
--------------
Primitive man built a city out of gold with stones which are over 100 tons moved them into place 120 miles from the spot they were cut from - and then 100,000 people just left it all behind and vanished! I think that is a mystery for us today. The stone-age Incas had no mystery about how to build houses on Lake Titti Kaka out of reeds and float on the lake as if it was earth. You must know we as modern scientific experts have no idea how the Incas built Cusco with stone roads and walls which were put together in a way which to this day you cannot pry them apart. I think you are really not living in this world! I went to Machu Picchu when I was six years old. I remember it like it was yesterday... I was in awe with the whole thing then and I am still baffled by the enormity of the project and why the builders/dwellers just disappeared? Leaving everything behind!

I doubt we will ever have an answer for that place! And you think eventually ALL mysteries will be solved? We are no closer to solving the mysteries of why the Easter Island Heads got there than we were 50 years ago. Do not try and simplify the mysteries of the universe by ignoring the fact that we are not as smart as "primitive man" was. They had access to things we only dream about. And they said they spoke to the GODS! They left pictures of their GODS. They said their GODS were coming back! And you are so smart you don't even believe in ANY GOD!

Ok.....:confused:

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
06-29-2013, 11:47 PM
If god created the natural laws in the first place why would he need to override them?

Of course science can determine when the barley will ripen just as with any other grain, so I'm not sure what you are getting at. Also, calendars are a method of keeping time which has nothing to do with god's calendar versus a pagan calendar.

Take care,
Rose

Hello Rose
I am ignoring your first question in your post which I have not copied, because you are making a false claim to begin with.

As for your question about why would God need to override the natural laws, the simple answer is; there would not be miracles. You can take the simplest of miracles or we can take just one and the most complex and talk about resurrection. No natural law, will result in a person being resurrected. We cannot begin to imagine the process involve. A person to grow to maturity takes years and yet as Paul says (1Cor 15:52); In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. In as long as it takes the eye to blink, a dead person can be raised to life. That is overriding natural laws to a fantastic degree. No other explanation of why God needs to override natural laws is necessary.

Now it is up to you Rose to prove science knows precisely predict when the barley will ripen. Maybe under controlled laboratory conditions this might be possible and a statistical variation of the time for individual seed to grow and reach the ripening stage may be achievable. In the real world, we have the weather to contend with and the length of time for the seed to grow and reach the ripening stage will depend on the rainfall, the amount of sunlight and heat etc. Now if science can accurately predict those conditions for growing period, then you could be right. It is like saying the average pregnancy for a woman from conception to birth takes nine months, but for every individual pregnancy, it will be a matter of statistical variation or chance (unless you can accurately predict accurately) that the period will be exactly nine months. How long each individual pregnancy will last is unknown. These things are more easily observed and statistically recorded than precisely predicted.

I am enjoying your conversation with Mystykal, you have many challenging questions to answer. What you prove to me is that you have no solid foundation for believing anything if you are now prepared to give up the Big Bang "theory" which is scientific fact. You constantly prove to me you are living in a dream world and not dealing with reality. Miracles are outside scientific understanding and are unlikely to ever be explained scientifically no matter how long the human race might continue according to the "theory" of Evolution, which is another scientific fact that I can presume from what you have said, that you might be prepared to give up on that too. Miracles are outside human understanding, but that does not mean miracles never happen. If we are to live by the things that are known and I include genuine scientific discovery, we cannot dismiss miracles, which have been observed and recorded as historical events. This is why you also have to answer Mystykal's points about the observed mysteries which need explanation. The fact that I do not have the explanation for these mysteries, is not a reason to change my belief in God and what is recorded in the Bible. What God has not revealed in His word, might have to remain a mystery. God overrides natural laws when necessary and expedient. Mysteries do have an explanation (as yet), and they will remain mysteries, while the explanation is hidden to us.

All the best,

David

Rose
07-01-2013, 11:28 AM
Hello Rose
I am ignoring your first question in your post which I have not copied, because you are making a false claim to begin with.

As for your question about why would God need to override the natural laws, the simple answer is; there would not be miracles. You can take the simplest of miracles or we can take just one and the most complex and talk about resurrection. No natural law, will result in a person being resurrected. We cannot begin to imagine the process involve. A person to grow to maturity takes years and yet as Paul says (1Cor 15:52); In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. In as long as it takes the eye to blink, a dead person can be raised to life. That is overriding natural laws to a fantastic degree. No other explanation of why God needs to override natural laws is necessary.

Hello David,

If you believe that god created all the laws of the universe, then you would not call those laws "natural" because they didn't occur naturally, they were created. So, if we have a universe, created and fine-tuned by god, then the idea of a miracle would be the suspending or overriding of the laws that he himself created. What then is the purpose of a miracle, if it is only god suspending his own laws?


Now it is up to you Rose to prove science knows precisely predict when the barley will ripen. Maybe under controlled laboratory conditions this might be possible and a statistical variation of the time for individual seed to grow and reach the ripening stage may be achievable. In the real world, we have the weather to contend with and the length of time for the seed to grow and reach the ripening stage will depend on the rainfall, the amount of sunlight and heat etc. Now if science can accurately predict those conditions for growing period, then you could be right. It is like saying the average pregnancy for a woman from conception to birth takes nine months, but for every individual pregnancy, it will be a matter of statistical variation or chance (unless you can accurately predict accurately) that the period will be exactly nine months. How long each individual pregnancy will last is unknown. These things are more easily observed and statistically recorded than precisely predicted.

The point is that science can under controlled laboratory conditions predict the maturation of grains or fruits, because they know the chemical process by which fruit ripens...that means it isn't a mystery anymore. Just because weather conditions change the ripening time, does not take away from the fact that scientists know the method by which fruits ripen, thus they can give predictions given enough accurate information.


I am enjoying your conversation with Mystykal, you have many challenging questions to answer. What you prove to me is that you have no solid foundation for believing anything if you are now prepared to give up the Big Bang "theory" which is scientific fact. You constantly prove to me you are living in a dream world and not dealing with reality. Miracles are outside scientific understanding and are unlikely to ever be explained scientifically no matter how long the human race might continue according to the "theory" of Evolution, which is another scientific fact that I can presume from what you have said, that you might be prepared to give up on that too. Miracles are outside human understanding, but that does not mean miracles never happen. If we are to live by the things that are known and I include genuine scientific discovery, we cannot dismiss miracles, which have been observed and recorded as historical events. This is why you also have to answer Mystykal's points about the observed mysteries which need explanation. The fact that I do not have the explanation for these mysteries, is not a reason to change my belief in God and what is recorded in the Bible. What God has not revealed in His word, might have to remain a mystery. God overrides natural laws when necessary and expedient. Mysteries do have an explanation (as yet), and they will remain mysteries, while the explanation is hidden to us.

All the best,

David

Of course I'm open to giving up the Big Bang theory if it were overthrown by scientific evidence. That is the advantage scientists, and open minded folk have over people who are bound by their religious doctrines that cannot change with discovery and evidence. Also, I am not saying that there are not still many mysteries that science cannot yet explain, but that doesn't mean they are miracles, or won't someday be explained...positing god explains nothing. Besides that the only evidence you have for miracles is contained in the Bible and that's no evidence at all, only hearsay.

You keep referring to the laws that you think god created as "natural" laws and when he overrides his own laws you call it a miracle! How would that be any more of a miracle then the creation of the laws in the first place? A law is only natural if it comes into being by a natural process, not an intentional creation. Just like evolution is the natural process by which things evolve, whereas creation is the intentional act of an agent.

Take care,
Rose

Rose
07-01-2013, 02:29 PM
Hi Rose:

I really do not want to insult you! Really! But...

You said, "One by one the things that were considered mysterious to primitive man are being solved, there is no reason to believe that given enough time the "god mystery" will also be solved.
-------------

Primitive man built a city out of gold with stones which are over 100 tons moved them into place 120 miles from the spot they were cut from - and then 100,000 people just left it all behind and vanished! I think that is a mystery for us today. The stone-age Incas had no mystery about how to build houses on Lake Titti Kaka out of reeds and float on the lake as if it was earth. You must know we as modern scientific experts have no idea how the Incas built Cusco with stone roads and walls which were put together in a way which to this day you cannot pry them apart. I think you are really not living in this world! I went to Machu Picchu when I was six years old. I remember it like it was yesterday... I was in awe with the whole thing then and I am still baffled by the enormity of the project and why the builders/dwellers just disappeared? Leaving everything behind!

I doubt we will ever have an answer for that place! And you think eventually ALL mysteries will be solved? We are no closer to solving the mysteries of why the Easter Island Heads got there than we were 50 years ago. Do not try and simplify the mysteries of the universe by ignoring the fact that we are not as smart as "primitive man" was. They had access to things we only dream about. And they said they spoke to the GODS! They left pictures of their GODS. They said their GODS were coming back! And you are so smart you don't even believe in ANY GOD!

Ok.....:confused:

Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal,

I'm not quite sure why you are so astonished at what I said? I didn't say ALL mysteries would be solved given enough time (there will always be new mysteries to explore), I said the "god mystery" would be solved. One by one the mysteries of primitive man are being solved like the weather, reproduction, and disease...things that primitive man thought the gods caused are now known to have natural explanations.

I agree the magnitude of many of the structures you mentioned are awe inspiring and seem almost impossible to have been made by people, but one thing you must remember is that it took hundreds of thousands of people decades to build such megaliths. Given enough people, enough materials, and enough time almost anything is possible in the way of giant structures.

Why would you think because some primitive men made statues of gods, and said they spoke to the gods that what they said is true, where is the evidence for any of it?


Here is a video reporting on some of the new findings regarding the Easter Island "Heads" which aren't just heads anymore...they have bodies too! Also, scientists have a pretty good idea how the statues were moved and placed in their upright positions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88XgGUxGR14

Mystykal
07-02-2013, 02:34 AM
Hello Mystykal,

I'm not quite sure why you are so astonished at what I said? I didn't say ALL mysteries would be solved given enough time (there will always be new mysteries to explore), I said the "god mystery" would be solved. One by one the mysteries of primitive man are being solved like the weather, reproduction, and disease...things that primitive man thought the gods caused are now known to have natural explanations.

I agree the magnitude of many of the structures you mentioned are awe inspiring and seem almost impossible to have been made by people, but one thing you must remember is that it took hundreds of thousands of people decades to build such megaliths. Given enough people, enough materials, and enough time almost anything is possible in the way of giant structures.

Why would you think because some primitive men made statues of gods, and said they spoke to the gods that what they said is true, where is the evidence for any of it?


Here is a video reporting on some of the new findings regarding the Easter Island "Heads" which aren't just heads anymore...they have bodies too! Also, scientists have a pretty good idea how the statues were moved and placed in their upright positions.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88XgGUxGR14

Hi Rose:

Cool video! Thanks! I understand when you ask, "Why would you think because some primitive men made statues of gods, and said they spoke to the gods that what they said is true, where is the evidence for any of it?
I think the fact that the legends that these cuty builders tell must have some basis in reality. The notion that all things suoernatural are false is not a way to understand the writings of "holy med" under all conditions. Sometimes the predictions of these "inspired" people do come true. So to disreagard them in their intirety seems foolish to me. It's a little like saying it's never rained so it never will. And you have some "crazy guy" building an ark because GOD told hime 120 years earlier to start building. I know you do not believe any of the evidence we see in nature could be related to a world wide flood. My point is IF that story is true and reflexts the nature of how GOD works with people - then we must accept the GOD Model as being real. If we don't then when the "end" of the world comes we will not be ready to cross over to the other side. That kind of belief takes a kind of faith that must be based on past history being true. And that history comes to us from amny ancient sources. The Bible suggests that there is a true way and there is a mythological way. NOt all things are false. The trick is to find the true path and follow it. The true path is the Word of GOD!

Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
07-02-2013, 05:34 AM
Hello Rose


Hello David,

If you believe that god created all the laws of the universe, then you would not call those laws "natural" because they didn't occur naturally, they were created. We can call the laws "natural" or "created" and we both know what we are talking about; we are talking about the same laws and I am happy to use the definition you use if you say they are natural.


So, if we have a universe, created and fine-tuned by god, then the idea of a miracle would be the suspending or overriding of the laws that he himself created. What then is the purpose of a miracle, if it is only god suspending his own laws? Lets consider the reasons:-
1. To show God's can control the forces man is unable to control.
2. To make things happen which would otherwise not happen.
3. To make things happen at the time God wants them to happen.


The point is that science can under controlled laboratory conditions predict the maturation of grains or fruits, because they know the chemical process by which fruit ripens...that means it isn't a mystery anymore. Just because weather conditions change the ripening time, does not take away from the fact that scientists know the method by which fruits ripen, thus they can give predictions given enough accurate information. Science is finding out more and more and it will require greatly more powerful computers to begin to predict when things will happen like the ripening of the barley. There are so many variables outside the control of man. The difference between man and God is that God has the computing power to perform the calculations necessary. Also God has control over the natural elements when it suits his purpose. There is no room in science for miracles to happen.


Of course I'm open to giving up the Big Bang theory if it were overthrown by scientific evidence. That is the advantage scientists, and open minded folk have over people who are bound by their religious doctrines that cannot change with discovery and evidence. At present science takes the "Theory of Evolution" as fact. Yet, you would be willing to accept that this fact could change if science comes up with the evidence. This must mean that what is accepted at the moment is fact, might not be fact in future. That is the problem with "theory"; it cannot be absolute fact. When can the word "theory" be dropped? We have a difference of opinions; one opinion is Evolution and the other is Creation. Evolution is the explanation given by man and Creation is the explanation given by God. Anyone who believes in God (the Creator) has to believe in Creation. Believers in Creation do not have to understand anything about the way things were created. Creation is the simple answer to explain the origin of the universe. The "when" is "the beginning" that is as much as those who believe in Creation have to know. The Creation of life on earth is a later creation to that which explains the origin of the universe. The creation of life has been explained simply in the Bible and what we are not told, we do not have to worry about.


Also, I am not saying that there are not still many mysteries that science cannot yet explain, but that doesn't mean they are miracles, or won't someday be explained...positing god explains nothing. Besides that the only evidence you have for miracles is contained in the Bible and that's no evidence at all, only hearsay. The existence of the Jews today is a miracle. If we did not have the Bible and only had the record of history, then what we have seen happen to far larger and more powerful nations than Israel and how those powerful nations have not survived and disappeared, then the survival of the Jews would be a remarkable fact. So remarkable as to be called a miracle. By rights, it should not have happened.


You keep referring to the laws that you think god created as "natural" laws and when he overrides his own laws you call it a miracle! How would that be any more of a miracle then the creation of the laws in the first place? A law is only natural if it comes into being by a natural process, not an intentional creation. Just like evolution is the natural process by which things evolve, whereas creation is the intentional act of an agent. You have come back to that which I have already answered at the beginning of this post. Creation of the Universe "in the beginning" is a miracle. How God did it and what the nature of the energy required to create the universe we do not know and we cannot explain. The creation of life on this planet is another creation separate from the creation of the universe. Science is still looking for answers to explain the evolution it says happened. Those who believe in God simply accept the creation of the universe as a single fact and the creation of life on this planet as another single fact.

The more the universe has been studied and the limits of the universe have been found to extend, shows the Creator to be more powerful than we have imagined in the past. Is God infinitely powerful? It does not matter whether God has infinite power or not. The power of God is so great that it does not look to be limited. The power of God is something which cannot be measured.

The intelligence factor of God is another measurement, that cannot be measured and is difficult to comprehend. The Bible simply says in Genesis; he made the stars also. Elsewhere we are simply told; (God) stretched out the heavens.. We are told by another writer that God has named all the stars (trillions x trillions). Even so, as great as that is, when we take something like the brain with trillions of neurons etc that makes the scale of the universe and the number of stars not so great. As for God being able create a man and resurrect a man, is showing the combination of God's power and intelligence. God's intelligence gathering and ruling in the kingdoms of men to bring about his purpose and for prophecies to be fulfilled right on time, is another aspect of God our limited minds cannot comprehend fully. I know my limited capability to understand the things which God has done and can do and for that reason, I am in awe of God for his greatness and intelligence. Not even the collected minds of all the scientists who have ever lived is going to match that of God.



All the best

David

Rose
07-02-2013, 03:59 PM
Hi Rose:

Cool video! Thanks! I understand when you ask, "Why would you think because some primitive men made statues of gods, and said they spoke to the gods that what they said is true, where is the evidence for any of it?
I think the fact that the legends that these cuty builders tell must have some basis in reality. The notion that all things supernatural are false is not a way to understand the writings of "holy men" under all conditions. Sometimes the predictions of these "inspired" people do come true. So to disreagard them in their intirety seems foolish to me. It's a little like saying it's never rained so it never will.
Hi Mystykal :yo:

There is no need to completely discard the supernatural, but one shouldn't place a lot of faith in writings that are presented from an entirely subjective point of view. It is much better to take the role of a skeptic and test what is said, even by "holy men" then to be a blind follower. I think if I lived where it never rained, I would not invest in building a boat. :D


And you have some "crazy guy" building an ark because GOD told hime 120 years earlier to start building. I know you do not believe any of the evidence we see in nature could be related to a world wide flood. My point is IF that story is true and reflexts the nature of how GOD works with people - then we must accept the GOD Model as being real. If we don't then when the "end" of the world comes we will not be ready to cross over to the other side. That kind of belief takes a kind of faith that must be based on past history being true. And that history comes to us from amny ancient sources. The Bible suggests that there is a true way and there is a mythological way. NOt all things are false. The trick is to find the true path and follow it. The true path is the Word of GOD!

Namaste,

Mystykal

First off there is absolutely no evidence that Noah ever existed let alone built an ark! You can't jump to the idea of a world wide flood before you confirm the authenticity of the story's author. All we have are words in a book that don't sound a whole lot different from other mythological flood stories, nowhere is there the smallest scrap of verifiable evidence to confirm anything that the Bible says about Noah or the Flood.

You say the true path is the word of god...I say what's the difference between the Bible and any other religious text that says similar things?

Take care,
Rose

Rose
07-02-2013, 05:23 PM
Hello Rose

We can call the laws "natural" or "created" and we both know what we are talking about; we are talking about the same laws and I am happy to use the definition you use if you say they are natural.

Lets consider the reasons:-
1. To show God's can control the forces man is unable to control.
2. To make things happen which would otherwise not happen.
3. To make things happen at the time God wants them to happen.

Science is finding out more and more and it will require greatly more powerful computers to begin to predict when things will happen like the ripening of the barley. There are so many variables outside the control of man. The difference between man and God is that God has the computing power to perform the calculations necessary. Also God has control over the natural elements when it suits his purpose. There is no room in science for miracles to happen.

Hello David

If god exists and is the creator of the universe then one would expect him to have control over everything, why would he have to prove his power by performing miracles, which are only alterations of the way he created things to begin with?


At present science takes the "Theory of Evolution" as fact. Yet, you would be willing to accept that this fact could change if science comes up with the evidence. This must mean that what is accepted at the moment is fact, might not be fact in future. That is the problem with "theory"; it cannot be absolute fact. When can the word "theory" be dropped? We have a difference of opinions; one opinion is Evolution and the other is Creation. Evolution is the explanation given by man and Creation is the explanation given by God. Anyone who believes in God (the Creator) has to believe in Creation. Believers in Creation do not have to understand anything about the way things were created. Creation is the simple answer to explain the origin of the universe. The "when" is "the beginning" that is as much as those who believe in Creation have to know. The Creation of life on earth is a later creation to that which explains the origin of the universe. The creation of life has been explained simply in the Bible and what we are not told, we do not have to worry about.

Many parts of what is know about Evolution are no longer theories they are facts, so they will never be overturned. Many Christians believe that god used evolution as part of his creation process, thus doing away with the need for Adam and Eve...this shows how much Evolution is a part of what is accepted as reality, even among the religious folk.


The existence of the Jews today is a miracle. If we did not have the Bible and only had the record of history, then what we have seen happen to far larger and more powerful nations than Israel and how those powerful nations have not survived and disappeared, then the survival of the Jews would be a remarkable fact. So remarkable as to be called a miracle. By rights, it should not have happened.

The existence of the Jews today is no more of a miracle than the existence of any humans. At one point in our human past around 60,000 years ago, geneticists have determined that the population of Homo Sapiens dropped to about 10,000...one disease could have wiped us out - that was a pretty close call.


You have come back to that which I have already answered at the beginning of this post. Creation of the Universe "in the beginning" is a miracle. How God did it and what the nature of the energy required to create the universe we do not know and we cannot explain. The creation of life on this planet is another creation separate from the creation of the universe. Science is still looking for answers to explain the evolution it says happened. Those who believe in God simply accept the creation of the universe as a single fact and the creation of life on this planet as another single fact.

The more the universe has been studied and the limits of the universe have been found to extend, shows the Creator to be more powerful than we have imagined in the past. Is God infinitely powerful? It does not matter whether God has infinite power or not. The power of God is so great that it does not look to be limited. The power of God is something which cannot be measured.

The intelligence factor of God is another measurement, that cannot be measured and is difficult to comprehend. The Bible simply says in Genesis; he made the stars also. Elsewhere we are simply told; (God) stretched out the heavens.. We are told by another writer that God has named all the stars (trillions x trillions). Even so, as great as that is, when we take something like the brain with trillions of neurons etc that makes the scale of the universe and the number of stars not so great. As for God being able create a man and resurrect a man, is showing the combination of God's power and intelligence. God's intelligence gathering and ruling in the kingdoms of men to bring about his purpose and for prophecies to be fulfilled right on time, is another aspect of God our limited minds cannot comprehend fully. I know my limited capability to understand the things which God has done and can do and for that reason, I am in awe of God for his greatness and intelligence. Not even the collected minds of all the scientists who have ever lived is going to match that of God.



All the best

David

It's a good thing that many intelligent minds chose to try and understand how life and the universe began, instead of just positing god, or we would still be praying to god to heal our diseases and put food in our bellies.

Everything that you say about god are just words written in the Bible, there is not one scrap of evidence to validate anything it says, yet over and over again science provides hard evidence to back up their claims. On what grounds do you believe the Bible and not science?

Take care,

Rose

Mystykal
07-02-2013, 10:54 PM
Hi Mystykal :yo:

There is no need to completely discard the supernatural, but one shouldn't place a lot of faith in writings that are presented from an entirely subjective point of view. It is much better to take the role of a skeptic and test what is said, even by "holy men" then to be a blind follower. I think if I lived where it never rained, I would not invest in building a boat. :D



First off there is absolutely no evidence that Noah ever existed let alone built an ark! You can't jump to the idea of a world wide flood before you confirm the authenticity of the story's author. All we have are words in a book that don't sound a whole lot different from other mythological flood stories, nowhere is there the smallest scrap of verifiable evidence to confirm anything that the Bible says about Noah or the Flood.

You say the true path is the word of god...I say what's the difference between the Bible and any other religious text that says similar things?

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:
Talk about jumping to conclusions! You completely assumed that when I say Word of GOD I exclusively mean the Bible and its 66 books! I did not say that! However I think that the large stones around the towns near Mount Ararat in Turkey COULD very well be ballast for a big ark. Like I have said before - there is evidence if you know where to look. I think the Turkish gov. got it wrong though with their site saying that is Noah's ark. It's too small.
Where you and I differ is that if you look at the Noah's ark story it really is a story about salvation and the human body.

932

This is very important to understand because the whole Ark of Noah is the symbol of salvation. What is written in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments, is related with the Kabbalah. http://gnosticteachings.org/courses/kabbalah-of-genesis/686-the-ark-of-noah-2.html

To ignore this foundation which is hidden in all Biblical scriptures is to ignore the Model which GOD used to create the world and everything in it. The power to change things comes from understanding the system being used. This is how we know that the Bible model is correct in relation to other models which differ from it. To the exstent that other models of thought align with the the Bible system of thougt arrangement to that exstent they are powerful to alter the laws of "nature",

So if GOD had told you to build an ark 120 years before it ever rained.... you would have drowned! :D


Namaste,

Mystykal

David M
07-03-2013, 04:52 AM
Hello Rose


Hello David

If god exists and is the creator of the universe then one would expect him to have control over everything, why would he have to prove his power by performing miracles, which are only alterations of the way he created things to begin with? You only have to list the miracles and then look at the purpose they served. The parting of the Red Sea for example is not an event that would have happened naturally. The other factor with these miraculous events is that they happened when required.


Many parts of what is know about Evolution are no longer theories they are facts, so they will never be overturned. Many Christians believe that god used evolution as part of his creation process, thus doing away with the need for Adam and Eve...this shows how much Evolution is a part of what is accepted as reality, even among the religious folk. Once again, you generalize and make assumptions about all Christians. If I am classed as a Christian, I do not hold with the views of other Christians. Even though I have tried to consider how the Creation took place in step with increasing complexity showing a type of evolutionary/design progress I do not agree with the Theory of Evolution which does not allow for different kinds as mentioned in Genesis.
Evolution has it roots in the Big Bang and if the Bing Bang cannot be proven as is shown to be unreliable, the same can be said for the next "theory" that will replace it. If you do not have a solid foundation, then the foundation is useless and cannot support that which is built upon on.



The existence of the Jews today is no more of a miracle than the existence of any humans. At one point in our human past around 60,000 years ago, geneticists have determined that the population of Homo Sapiens dropped to about 10,000...one disease could have wiped us out - that was a pretty close call. So the human population is a miracle whether it has come about by Evolution or Creation. I thought there is no room for miracles in Science. You are saying that Evolution can be based on a miracle; which does not make sense since evolution has to find a continuous link between species and cannot accept step changes which would be seen as miracle events as the only explanation.


It's a good thing that many intelligent minds chose to try and understand how life and the universe began, instead of just positing god, or we would still be praying to god to heal our diseases and put food in our bellies. It is good to know that God keeps his promises and that means the earth will not end as it could eventually due to the theory of evolution. God allows the rain to fall on the unrighteous and the righteous and both are subject to time and chance. That is good for the unrighteous and that is why you can enjoy your food and have the things you enjoy in life. That will end one day at a day you care not to worry about, and that is when the judgement of God will show no partiality. The saying; "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" is the saying which applies to evolutionists. It is not my saying and does not reflect the hope that I have which is based on the solid foundation of God's word.


Everything that you say about god are just words written in the Bible, there is not one scrap of evidence to validate anything it says, yet over and over again science provides hard evidence to back up their claims. On what grounds do you believe the Bible and not science? The Bible gives us the answer to the origin of the universe and life and science does not. The Bible has predicted future events which have happened and science has not. The Bible has provided answers in advance of scientific discovery. The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence. All this has given me evidence to support my belief in the Bible and the Word of God and his promises for the future.

All the best

David

David M
07-03-2013, 06:09 AM
Hello Richard



I agree that there is a consistent message If you agree with me that there is a consistent message, then why are you not looking at all the contradictions you say are in the Bible and looking for the original meaning of the words the author intended us to understand that will take away the contradiction and continue with the consistent message?


Your assertion that "God is trustworthy" makes no sense to me. What do you mean by "trustworthy"? Tell me one thing that you can actually TRUST God to do. If he were half as trustworthy as the average dentist there would be no debate about his existence. It appears you have emptied the word "trustworthy" of all meaning. Whilst you disagree with prophecy which I believe has been fulfilled and the truth of God's word has proven reliable in the past, it is on that basis that I take God's word as trustworthy. I see prophecy being fulfilled in our generation. You do not want to accept these things and you reject any evidence anyone presents to you. You reject everything anyone presents to you that does not fit in with your own thoughts.

As for the first part of your reply and the model you like to show, then from the perspective of someone who has never travelled outside their country or further than a few miles from their home, then the top half of that picture is all that they see. From our view stood on the surface of the earth, we only see sky above us, the clouds which bring rain and the sun that gives light and heat. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is more concerned with life and doing that which is righteous and leads to salvation. It would make no difference if the Kingdom of God was built on an infinite flat plane in space, but then that idea would possibly fail unless God changes the forces that govern the universe. People do not have to know the world is a globe to understand the salvation of God. Some people have no sense of perspective or direction and that does not matter; God is not judging us on our ability to deduce that the earth is not flat, but is curved.

The way the Bible describes things is from the perspective of a person standing on the earth and not from space. I can think that the sun revolves around the earth for that is how it looks from my perspective. It does not make one difference to my life or my salvation that I do not see the earth revolving around the sun.

All the best

David

Rose
07-03-2013, 05:06 PM
Hi Rose:
Talk about jumping to conclusions! You completely assumed that when I say Word of GOD I exclusively mean the Bible and its 66 books! I did not say that! However I think that the large stones around the towns near Mount Ararat in Turkey COULD very well be ballast for a big ark. Like I have said before - there is evidence if you know where to look. I think the Turkish gov. got it wrong though with their site saying that is Noah's ark. It's too small.
Where you and I differ is that if you look at the Noah's ark story it really is a story about salvation and the human body.

932

This is very important to understand because the whole Ark of Noah is the symbol of salvation. What is written in the Bible, in the Old and New Testaments, is related with the Kabbalah. http://gnosticteachings.org/courses/kabbalah-of-genesis/686-the-ark-of-noah-2.html

To ignore this foundation which is hidden in all Biblical scriptures is to ignore the Model which GOD used to create the world and everything in it. The power to change things comes from understanding the system being used. This is how we know that the Bible model is correct in relation to other models which differ from it. To the exstent that other models of thought align with the the Bible system of thougt arrangement to that exstent they are powerful to alter the laws of "nature",

So if GOD had told you to build an ark 120 years before it ever rained.... you would have drowned! :D


Namaste,

Mystykal

Hello Mystykal

Even if you don't exclusively mean the Bible when you speak of the word of god, you apparently include the biblical compilation of works as part of what you call the word of god...so that means you think the Bible is the word of god - at least in part.

If I heard a voice from heaven telling me to build an ark I would have to determine at that time what I would do, but I most certainly would not build an ark or anything else based on words in a book written by primitive men who believed in mythological beings. You speak of Noah and the ark as if they were facts in a science book, whereas they are only myths contained in ancient writings. Not one part of the Flood/Ark story is credible, or can hold up to the scientific method, on every count supernatural intervention would have to take place, so why bother having Noah do anything at all...god could have just wiped all life off the planet and started over again with a new Adam and Eve.

You hold the Bible up as the model by which we should understand how everything was created, yet it is proven wrong over and over again. Positing the statement "In the beginning god created" tells us nothing, so why should anyone believe it? There is not one scrap of evidence anywhere that shows the laws of nature have ever been suspended or altered by anything. Why do you speak as if there is?

Take care,
Rose

Rose
07-03-2013, 10:56 PM
Hello Rose

You only have to list the miracles and then look at the purpose they served. The parting of the Red Sea for example is not an event that would have happened naturally. The other factor with these miraculous events is that they happened when required.

Once again, you generalize and make assumptions about all Christians. If I am classed as a Christian, I do not hold with the views of other Christians. Even though I have tried to consider how the Creation took place in step with increasing complexity showing a type of evolutionary/design progress I do not agree with the Theory of Evolution which does not allow for different kinds as mentioned in Genesis.
Evolution has it roots in the Big Bang and if the Bing Bang cannot be proven as is shown to be unreliable, the same can be said for the next "theory" that will replace it. If you do not have a solid foundation, then the foundation is useless and cannot support that which is built upon on.
Many parts of what is know about Evolution are no longer theories they are facts, so they will never be overturned. Many Christians believe that god used evolution as part of his creation process, thus doing away with the need for Adam and Eve...this shows how much Evolution is a part of what is accepted as reality, even among the religious folk.

Hello David

No, I didn't make assumptions about "all" Christians, I said "many" Christians.

So the human population is a miracle whether it has come about by Evolution or Creation. I thought there is no room for miracles in Science. You are saying that Evolution can be based on a miracle; which does not make sense since evolution has to find a continuous link between species and cannot accept step changes which would be seen as miracle events as the only explanation.

The existence of the Jews today is no more of a miracle than the existence of any humans. At one point in our human past around 60,000 years ago, geneticists have determined that the population of Homo Sapiens dropped to about 10,000...one disease could have wiped us out - that was a pretty close call.

I never said Evolution is based on a miracle! My statement was in response to what you said about the miracle of the Jews.


It is good to know that God keeps his promises and that means the earth will not end as it could eventually due to the theory of evolution. God allows the rain to fall on the unrighteous and the righteous and both are subject to time and chance. That is good for the unrighteous and that is why you can enjoy your food and have the things you enjoy in life. That will end one day at a day you care not to worry about, and that is when the judgement of God will show no partiality. The saying; "eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die" is the saying which applies to evolutionists. It is not my saying and does not reflect the hope that I have which is based on the solid foundation of God's word.

The Bible gives us the answer to the origin of the universe and life and science does not. The Bible has predicted future events which have happened and science has not. The Bible has provided answers in advance of scientific discovery. The Bible is supported by archaeological evidence. All this has given me evidence to support my belief in the Bible and the Word of God and his promises for the future.

All the best

David

The theory of evolution does not predict the end of the earth, rather scientists know when the earth will end from the size of our sun...in around 5 billion years it will grow into a Red Giant and engulf the earth...end of story.

I don't really call positing god an answer to anything, and besides that positing god as the creator of the universe says nothing about the authenticity of the Biblegod. Archaeological evidence has only confirmed the existence of a few cities and kings contained in the Bible, but says nothing about any of the major claims that Scripture makes. There is not one shred of evidence for Noah, Abraham, or Moses and many scholars believe that if a king named David did exist he was no more than a tribal ruler of a small region.

The Bible has not given people answers to anything, all the discoveries and inventions of man have come about by a lot of physical and intellectual hard work and trial and error. Where was god for all those thousands of years when infections killed people by the millions, or when women who died in childbirth could have been saved?

Take care,
Rose

Mystykal
07-04-2013, 12:52 AM
Hello Mystykal

Even if you don't exclusively mean the Bible when you speak of the word of god, you apparently include the biblical compilation of works as part of what you call the word of god...so that means you think the Bible is the word of god - at least in part.

If I heard a voice from heaven telling me to build an ark I would have to determine at that time what I would do, but I most certainly would not build an ark or anything else based on words in a book written by primitive men who believed in mythological beings. You speak of Noah and the ark as if they were facts in a science book, whereas they are only myths contained in ancient writings. Not one part of the Flood/Ark story is credible, or can hold up to the scientific method, on every count supernatural intervention would have to take place, so why bother having Noah do anything at all...god could have just wiped all life off the planet and started over again with a new Adam and Eve.

You hold the Bible up as the model by which we should understand how everything was created, yet it is proven wrong over and over again. Positing the statement "In the beginning god created" tells us nothing, so why should anyone believe it? There is not one scrap of evidence anywhere that shows the laws of nature have ever been suspended or altered by anything. Why do you speak as if there is?

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

So in answer to your question you are right that science has not found any "evidence" for anything approaching explaining the Biblical stories or the origins of the universe. The problem with science is that it is not very scientific! Scientists use science like a religion. They do not look at the facts around them objectivly, You seem to think so but I work with scientists every day and I see them doing just the opposite. So...
The issue of the GOD Model is one of immortality. The promise of everlasting life is only given through models which as yet cannot be tested by the scientific method. So if you wait for that day to come no faith will be necessary and hence you will be out of luck because the GOD Model requires FAITH. Not stupidity! FAITH-without which it is impossible to please GOD. The whole scheme of the supernatural does not work without the GOD Model. So for you to say that you don't discredit all things spiritual and yet do not believe in GOD is illogical. Just to say that there may be some "unknown intelligence" out there that never can be known with any certainty - which cannot communicate with us and give us enough guidance to let us know how to obtain eternal life is a waste! No point to it. We don't have that kind of time. Martial arts has taught me that the mystical power is real and is available for healing and for all our needs as humans. Finding the inner balance in life is the key.

"Be still and know that I am GOD."

Namaste,

Mystykal

Rose
07-04-2013, 11:59 AM
Hi Rose:

So in answer to your question you are right that science has not found any "evidence" for anything approaching explaining the Biblical stories or the origins of the universe. The problem with science is that it is not very scientific! Scientists use science like a religion. They do not look at the facts around them objectivly, You seem to think so but I work with scientists every day and I see them doing just the opposite. So...
Hello Mystykal

That is a pretty general and broad statement about science being used like a religion. The only thing that even comes close in the field of science to having a "central dogma" like religion, is the "scientific method" which requires evidence and rigorous testing to be accepted...nothing is simply believed on faith. Just like you can't lump all religious people into one bag, you can't lump all scientists into one bag.


The issue of the GOD Model is one of immortality. The promise of everlasting life is only given through models which as yet cannot be tested by the scientific method. So if you wait for that day to come no faith will be necessary and hence you will be out of luck because the GOD Model requires FAITH. Not stupidity! FAITH-without which it is impossible to please GOD. The whole scheme of the supernatural does not work without the GOD Model.

If the promise of everlasting life cannot be tested and must be accepted on faith, what model of faith must I have? The Muslim model, the Christian model, or maybe the Hindu model, they are all so different so which one should I choose? If I go to a doctor with a broken leg, he doesn't require me to have faith in him in order to treat me...so, why does god? If something is real it doesn't require people to believe in it in order to work, so why does god?


So for you to say that you don't discredit all things spiritual and yet do not believe in GOD is illogical. Just to say that there may be some "unknown intelligence" out there that never can be known with any certainty - which cannot communicate with us and give us enough guidance to let us know how to obtain eternal life is a waste! No point to it. We don't have that kind of time. Martial arts has taught me that the mystical power is real and is available for healing and for all our needs as humans. Finding the inner balance in life is the key.

"Be still and know that I am GOD."

Namaste,

Mystykal

There is nothing illogical about not jumping to conclusions about the unknown, just because there are things that we don't understand and are mysterious doesn't mean there is a god. That's what science is all about, trying to understand the unknown so we can create a better world to live in. A world with less disease, more knowledge of our environment, greater understanding of how our bodies work and all the other improvements that make for better living conditions. Science is positive about understanding life here and now, most religions are negative about this life, directing their focus on the afterlife.

Our bodies have amazing powers of self healing when we have a positive and harmonious frame of mind. Like you said "Finding the inner balance in life is the key." I think all the self healings that people attribute to god come about from within ourselves, when one believes in something strongly enough there is a unity of thought...and where there is unity there is power, even at the cellular level.

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-04-2013, 05:48 PM
Hello Richard



I agree that there is a consistent message

If you agree with me that there is a consistent message, then why are you not looking at all the contradictions you say are in the Bible and looking for the original meaning of the words the author intended us to understand that will take away the contradiction and continue with the consistent message?

Good afternoon David,

I didn't say that it had an absolutely consistent message through and through. On the contrary, I said just the opposite. You misrepresented the intent of my words by snipping only that small part. Here is what I said in context:
I agree that there is a consistent message, but the funny thing is that you and I disagree about what that message actually says! So again, we see that the Bible is not a reliable guide for anything because it is just a pile of ambiguous words that every one interprets differently and there is no way for anyone to prove who is right or wrong. And that's why your illusion that you have "certainty" about your interpretations is so delusional. You hold to fringe doctrines that the vast majority of INTELLIGENT and INFORMED Bible believers disagree with. So why would you have any "confidence" that your fringe beliefs are true? If every agrees that the sky is blue, but you say that it is green, then maybe it would be a little nuts to claim that you have "certainty" that the sky is really green. Maybe a little humility would serve you better.
The contradictions cannot be resolved by "looking for the original meaning of the words" because the contradictions exist in the original manuscripts. I would never claim that a bad translation was a real contradiction in the Bible.



Whilst you disagree with prophecy which I believe has been fulfilled and the truth of God's word has proven reliable in the past, it is on that basis that I take God's word as trustworthy. I see prophecy being fulfilled in our generation. You do not want to accept these things and you reject any evidence anyone presents to you. You reject everything anyone presents to you that does not fit in with your own thoughts.

Your assertion that I reject any evidence anyone presents is as false, rude, and absurd. I have only rejected your false and unsupported assertions. What evidence have you presented? You merely make assertions like "the existence of the Bible is a miracle." That's not evidence David.

This is your problem: I consistently challenge you to present evidence based on logic and facts but you can't do it, so you make false assertions about me rejecting "everything that anyone presents" to me that doesn't fit with my own thoughts. That's not true David. I am an open minded man who freely admits when I am wrong. I have no dogmas to defend. Your assertions are quite ironic because you are actually describing yourself quite accurately. You must reject much science based on evidence because you are defending your false dogmas. You have no evidence supporting your belief in the Bible and you know it because you have not been able to support your claims no matter how many times I've asked. Your attempts are blatantly fallacious. Even if the Bible contained some prophecies, it wouldn't prove that it is all true and trustworthy. You take verses out of context. You make absurd assertions like "The existence of the Bible is a miracle" - that's the primary claim the Muslims make about the Quran! They say that the Quran itself is such a miraculous book that no other proof is needed. And ironically, not how the Quran itself blames people for refusing to receive it! You accuse me of similar things.
If the whole of mankind and Jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: Yet the greater part of men refuse ( to receive it ) except with ingratitude. (Isra 88-89)
So here is what we need to do David. It's tedious to constantly be talking past each other. We agree about most things because we are not raving lunatics. Therefore, when we come to a disagreement, our job is to ISOLATE the reason for the disagreement. Then we can AGREE about the reason for the disagreement, and we will come to understand each other's position. If we do this, conversation becomes both fun and fruitful. Otherwise we'll just be talking past each other.

The key is to actually engage what the other person says. I often get the feeling that you miss my point, misrepresent what I intended, or ignore it all together. That creates a sense of frustration in both of us. We need to actually engage what the other says in a meaningful way.


As for the first part of your reply and the model you like to show, then from the perspective of someone who has never travelled outside their country or further than a few miles from their home, then the top half of that picture is all that they see. From our view stood on the surface of the earth, we only see sky above us, the clouds which bring rain and the sun that gives light and heat. The Bible is not a scientific book, it is more concerned with life and doing that which is righteous and leads to salvation. It would make no difference if the Kingdom of God was built on an infinite flat plane in space, but then that idea would possibly fail unless God changes the forces that govern the universe. People do not have to know the world is a globe to understand the salvation of God. Some people have no sense of perspective or direction and that does not matter; God is not judging us on our ability to deduce that the earth is not flat, but is curved.

The way the Bible describes things is from the perspective of a person standing on the earth and not from space. I can think that the sun revolves around the earth for that is how it looks from my perspective. It does not make one difference to my life or my salvation that I do not see the earth revolving around the sun.

That's a common solution I've known about for a long time, but I've never thought it true or worthy of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I believed the Bible was God's Word, a revelation inspired by God. Your solution makes it into yet another fallacious man-made book filled with all sorts of misleading junk written by limited fallible humans, not inspired by God. If we follow your suggestion, then which parts of the Bible are true and which are based on fallible human perspective?

It looks to me that the cure is worse than the disease. By trying to find a way to protect the Bible as "God's inspired word" you have declared it to be the word of fallible men with limited perspective who were actually ignorant of basic science like the age of the earth, how it came to be, etc.

All the best,

Richard

David M
07-05-2013, 03:07 AM
Hello Richard

Good afternoon David,

I didn't say that it had an absolutely consistent message through and through. On the contrary, I said just the opposite. You misrepresented the intent of my words by snipping only that small part. Here is what I said in context:
I agree that there is a consistent message, but the funny thing is that you and I disagree about what that message actually says! So again, we see that the Bible is not a reliable guide for anything because it is just a pile of ambiguous words that every one interprets differently and there is no way for anyone to prove who is right or wrong. And that's why your illusion that you have "certainty" about your interpretations is so delusional. You hold to fringe doctrines that the vast majority of INTELLIGENT and INFORMED Bible believers disagree with. So why would you have any "confidence" that your fringe beliefs are true? If every agrees that the sky is blue, but you say that it is green, then maybe it would be a little nuts to claim that you have "certainty" that the sky is really green. Maybe a little humility would serve you better.
The contradictions cannot be resolved by "looking for the original meaning of the words" because the contradictions exist in the original manuscripts. I would never claim that a bad translation was a real contradiction in the Bible. You should not have said; " I agree that there is a consistent message". I see you twisting and squirming and doing all the things you generalize and accuse Christians of doing.


Your assertion that I reject any evidence anyone presents is as false, rude, and absurd. I have only rejected your false and unsupported assertions. What evidence have you presented? You merely make assertions like "the existence of the Bible is a miracle." That's not evidence David. You can think it is rude, but I do not merely make assertions like the one you have quoted. That is only a fraction of what I have presented and so once again you distort the truth to put the other person in a bad light while presenting yourself in the best light. I am cheesed off with this type of conversation.


This is your problem: I consistently challenge you to present evidence based on logic and facts but you can't do it, so you make false assertions about me rejecting "everything that anyone presents" to me that doesn't fit with my own thoughts. That's not true David. I am an open minded man who freely admits when I am wrong. I have no dogmas to defend. Your assertions are quite ironic because you are actually describing yourself quite accurately. You must reject much science based on evidence because you are defending your false dogmas. You have no evidence supporting your belief in the Bible and you know it because you have not been able to support your claims no matter how many times I've asked. Your attempts are blatantly fallacious. Even if the Bible contained some prophecies, it wouldn't prove that it is all true and trustworthy. You take verses out of context. You make absurd assertions like "The existence of the Bible is a miracle" - that's the primary claim the Muslims make about the Quran! They say that the Quran itself is such a miraculous book that no other proof is needed. And ironically, not how the Quran itself blames people for refusing to receive it! You accuse me of similar things.
If the whole of mankind and Jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: Yet the greater part of men refuse ( to receive it ) except with ingratitude. (Isra 88-89)
So here is what we need to do David. It's tedious to constantly be talking past each other. We agree about most things because we are not raving lunatics. Therefore, when we come to a disagreement, our job is to ISOLATE the reason for the disagreement. Then we can AGREE about the reason for the disagreement, and we will come to understand each other's position. If we do this, conversation becomes both fun and fruitful. Otherwise we'll just be talking past each other. Please stop generalizing and be specific as I have asked. I have challenged your logic and in generalizing you have made things worse by introducing further ambiguities. I have given you evidence and reasons which you simply deny and dismiss. You can argue against this and so we shall continue for ever to do the same. Please stop generalizing and introducing the arguments like the Quran. Our objective is to understand the word of God as we should and we should both be looking to correct the error which have been introduced by the transcribers and translators. Until we agree the wording and the message from the individual authors, we cannot agree what the Bible is telling us.


The key is to actually engage what the other person says. I often get the feeling that you miss my point, misrepresent what I intended, or ignore it all together. That creates a sense of frustration in both of us. We need to actually engage what the other says in a meaningful way. On this I agree and whilst I might miss some of your points, the same applies to you. We tend not to acknowledge every point that is made by way of reply. Instead of arguing about the point I have misinterpreted what you say, I have asked you what is it in the Bible you say has a consistent message. Either there is something that is consistent, or your words are meaningless and should not have been said. I was hoping that you have seen a consistent message (whether we agree or not) for that gives us a basis for discussion.


That's a common solution I've known about for a long time, but I've never thought it true or worthy of the Bible. When I was a Christian, I believed the Bible was God's Word, a revelation inspired by God. Your solution makes it into yet another fallacious man-made book filled with all sorts of misleading junk written by limited fallible humans, not inspired by God. If we follow your suggestion, then which parts of the Bible are true and which are based on fallible human perspective? I do not have a list that I can easily paste by way of reply. However, if we seriously do some exposition on some of these things, then we can take all this into account. It is easy for us to point out each other's mistakes and so we should be looking to correct the mistakes that others have introduced into the Bible. Either you want to correct the mistakes, which lead to getting closer to the truth and the consistent message from God, or you do not and just want to keep on saying it is full of error and inconsistency. One of us could have a problem. You have already changed your opinion of the Bible and I maintain that you did not found have the truth and have been taught and believed lies which are still in your mind to this day. I have not followed after the lies of men, and so have no reason to change that which I have come to believe in the Bible.
If I was to say God is 99% truthful that implies I think God is 1% untruthful. I cannot accept God is untruthful. God is perfect and he as the creator and who knows us, requires us to strive for perfection, which has been demonstrated in the person of his only begotten Son. Form your perspective, the Bible is not the work of God and is purely the work of men without inspiration from God. You might want to cling on to that opinion, but I shall be holding to mine. One way to begin a dialogue is to consider the history referred to in the Bible and agree the history which is true. Maybe from there we can look at prophecy that has been fulfilled in history related to that which we have already agreed is true.


It looks to me that the cure is worse than the disease. By trying to find a way to protect the Bible as "God's inspired word" you have declared it to be the word of fallible men with limited perspective who were actually ignorant of basic science like the age of the earth, how it came to be, etc. Again that is your opinion biassed to reflect your conclusion which is not the conclusion I am drawing. Inspired men, might not have been knowledgeable compared to 21st century thinking. We do not know if all the prophets could write or that that which had been revealed to them was written down by scribes who would hear the words of the prophet. How many people today cannot write? Are people ignorant because they cannot write? The prophets did not have to understand everything that was revealed to them. The job of the prophets was to deliver the message. Why assume the message is not the word of God, because of the person who delivers it. You will be asking for our mail to be delivered to our mail boxes by people who have degrees in logistics. That sounds ridiculous, yet you do not see how ridiculous your argument is to me.

Let's get beyond generalizations, stop referring the likes of the Muslims and the Quran or crazy Christians and deal with specifics in the Bible. I will leave you to continue your style of argument with others. I have had enough of this type of argument. I only ever wanted to reason from the Bible and get down to the truth of the message and leaning on your expertise of Hebrew and Greek or that of other's knowledge of these languages in order to get to the original meanings. Not reaching agreement on everything in the Bible is not reason for rejecting everything in the Bible. If by working through the Bible it is possible to get to a position where 51% of the Bible is seen as true, that is good enough for me, and the remaining 49% has to be worked at. Lets say the 49% requires some faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Getting to 51% is more that half and is therefore grounds for not rejecting the Bible as a whole. However, for the sake of argument and for the pursuance of truth, I shall not make the assumption that we shall get to 51%. How we achieve this daunting task is the problem set before us.

All the best

David

David M
07-05-2013, 03:55 AM
Hello Rose

Hello David

No, I didn't make assumptions about "all" Christians, I said "many" Christians. My bad for missing your qualification. So do you hold any Christians and what they believe in higher esteem than others and who are they?



I never said Evolution is based on a miracle! My statement was in response to what you said about the miracle of the Jews. No you did not state it, but that is what your statement inferred and lead me to understand.




The theory of evolution does not predict the end of the earth, rather scientists know when the earth will end from the size of our sun...in around 5 billion years it will grow into a Red Giant and engulf the earth...end of story. Evolution is a scientific fact, therefore science is predicting the earth and evolution will end when the sun dies. Evolution is not predicting that it will go on for ever nor is it predicting it will finish. With no end in sight evolution is blind. However, I am going on what scientists say, since evolution does not have a voice and it is scientists who are speaking.


I don't really call positing god an answer to anything, and besides that positing god as the creator of the universe says nothing about the authenticity of the Biblegod. Archaeological evidence has only confirmed the existence of a few cities and kings contained in the Bible, but says nothing about any of the major claims that Scripture makes. There is not one shred of evidence for Noah, Abraham, or Moses and many scholars believe that if a king named David did exist he was no more than a tribal ruler of a small region. Rose, you are not keeping up with events. Evidence has been found to the existence of King David and Abraham and others. You are like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. Many skeptics (like you) who once believed the city of Babylon did not exist and that the city was fictitious, were in ignorance until it was found buried below the sand. Now the city of Babylon is a well-known fact. If you want to deny the evidence that is coming to light in these days to prove the skeptics wrong, then that shows how blinkered you are.


The Bible has not given people answers to anything, all the discoveries and inventions of man have come about by a lot of physical and intellectual hard work and trial and error. Where was god for all those thousands of years when infections killed people by the millions, or when women who died in childbirth could have been saved? This is a weak argument on your part. We have always had death since Adam and Eve. Their fall from perfection and their sin. is the cause of all that which is not healthy in this world. Snakes bite and kill and in the wilderness we see the provision of God and the faith that it required for people to go and look at the snake on the pole. If they did not show faith, they would not be cured from the snake bite and they would die. This is the simple lesson we learn. God is in the position to put all this right and he has promised to do so. God has put in place the remedy to escape eternal death, God has not put in place the remedy for every illness and disease this world faces. If everyone had faith and believed and trusted in God, then the situation would be very much different. That is not the way of this world and the majority like you do not have faith and do not have belief and trust in God. You are contributing to the sickness of the world and not part of the solution.

Jesus knew that after he left to go to be with his Heavenly Father the the sick and the poor would remain and would need to be looked after. This is what he told his disciples and it was better for them at that time to concentrate on what he had to teach them. The same as Mary was commended for taking time out of her serving duty to listen to the message of Jesus. We have to take these lessons on board. I do not deny the good doctors do, but they do not heal and they have no cure for the eternal death we face. God has given us the solution and given us the evidence and the assurance of this by raising His only begotten Son.

We are not living in a perfect world and that imperfection began as a result of what Adam and Eve did. We have a very simple explanation for the origin of the evil things we see in the world which we do not like. God has said he will put things right and has set out the way in which it will be done. God is selecting those who believe in him and have faith. If you have given up your faith and lost your belief, then that has been your choice. If you continually seek to find excuses for not believing in God you will easily find them and continue to remain dead in your sins. The Bible has a very blunt message and yet has an equally positive message, which you refuse to acknowledge and promote, and so only concentrate on the negative.

All the best

David

L67
07-05-2013, 04:59 AM
Rose, you are not keeping up with events. Evidence has been found to the existence of King David and Abraham and others. You are like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. Many skeptics (like you) who once believed the city of Babylon did not exist and that the city was fictitious, were in ignorance until it was found buried below the sand. Now the city of Babylon is a well-known fact. If you want to deny the evidence that is coming to light in these days to prove the skeptics wrong, then that shows how blinkered you are.

Hey David.

What evidence? You routinely make these statements and then provide no evidence. Also you have questioned the dating methods accuracy many times, so how do we know the evidence was dated correctly? How do we know the evidence was from king Davids time or Babylon? This is a double standard you Christians routinely make. When it suits you the dating methods are never questioned and always legit.

It's funny how you tell people how blinkered they are for rejecting evidence you never posted. But YOU are guilty of rejecting established facts all the time when it doesn't suit your beliefs. By your logic that means you are blinkered beyond belief.


Please post all this evidence you claim exists.

Rose
07-05-2013, 11:46 AM
Hello Rose

Evolution is a scientific fact, therefore science is predicting the earth and evolution will end when the sun dies. Evolution is not predicting that it will go on for ever nor is it predicting it will finish. With no end in sight evolution is blind. However, I am going on what scientists say, since evolution does not have a voice and it is scientists who are speaking.

Hello David,

The voice that evolution has is the evidence that scientists are interpreting. Evolution speaks through fossils and the code of DNA, this tells scientists how things evolved.


Rose, you are not keeping up with events. Evidence has been found to the existence of King David and Abraham and others. You are like the proverbial ostrich burying its head in the sand. Many skeptics (like you) who once believed the city of Babylon did not exist and that the city was fictitious, were in ignorance until it was found buried below the sand. Now the city of Babylon is a well-known fact. If you want to deny the evidence that is coming to light in these days to prove the skeptics wrong, then that shows how blinkered you are.

Quite the contrary, I am most certainly keeping up with current archaeological findings, so I repeat: there is no verifiable evidence that Noah, Abraham or Moses ever existed. As for David only one reference to the House of David has been found, and that says nothing about whether he was a ruler of a small tribal region or a larger area. Most current biblical historians believe that Davids kingdom was nowhere near as big as the Bible claims...there is just no archaeological evidence for it. Without Noah, Moses, and Abraham the whole Bible loses its validity.


This is a weak argument on your part. We have always had death since Adam and Eve. Their fall from perfection and their sin. is the cause of all that which is not healthy in this world. Snakes bite and kill and in the wilderness we see the provision of God and the faith that it required for people to go and look at the snake on the pole. If they did not show faith, they would not be cured from the snake bite and they would die. This is the simple lesson we learn. God is in the position to put all this right and he has promised to do so. God has put in place the remedy to escape eternal death, God has not put in place the remedy for every illness and disease this world faces. If everyone had faith and believed and trusted in God, then the situation would be very much different. That is not the way of this world and the majority like you do not have faith and do not have belief and trust in God. You are contributing to the sickness of the world and not part of the solution.

Jesus knew that after he left to go to be with his Heavenly Father the the sick and the poor would remain and would need to be looked after. This is what he told his disciples and it was better for them at that time to concentrate on what he had to teach them. The same as Mary was commended for taking time out of her serving duty to listen to the message of Jesus. We have to take these lessons on board. I do not deny the good doctors do, but they do not heal and they have no cure for the eternal death we face. God has given us the solution and given us the evidence and the assurance of this by raising His only begotten Son.

We are not living in a perfect world and that imperfection began as a result of what Adam and Eve did. We have a very simple explanation for the origin of the evil things we see in the world which we do not like. God has said he will put things right and has set out the way in which it will be done. God is selecting those who believe in him and have faith. If you have given up your faith and lost your belief, then that has been your choice. If you continually seek to find excuses for not believing in God you will easily find them and continue to remain dead in your sins. The Bible has a very blunt message and yet has an equally positive message, which you refuse to acknowledge and promote, and so only concentrate on the negative.

All the best

David

The overused justification of why god doesn't heal disease because people don't having enough faith is lame, and blaming the worlds problems on Adam and Eve is ridiculous. Doctors don't require their patients to have faith before they try and heal them, neither does faith play any part in people showing mercy to strangers. Why does god require faith and belief before he will do anything to help people? All the Bible does is threaten people with damnation if they don't believe. Would you demand that your child have faith in you before you would take them to a doctor if they were sick? I hope not!

I don't have to make excuses for not believing in god, just like I don't have to make excuses for not believing in pink unicorns. I see nothing positive about the nature of the Bible's message, since it starts with a biased framework set up by a immoral tyrannical god who's sole objective is to obtain peoples worship and obedience.

Take care,
Rose

Richard Amiel McGough
07-05-2013, 11:51 AM
Hello Richard


Good afternoon David,

I didn't say that it had an absolutely consistent message through and through. On the contrary, I said just the opposite. You misrepresented the intent of my words by snipping only that small part. Here is what I said in context:
I agree that there is a consistent message, but the funny thing is that you and I disagree about what that message actually says! So again, we see that the Bible is not a reliable guide for anything because it is just a pile of ambiguous words that every one interprets differently and there is no way for anyone to prove who is right or wrong. And that's why your illusion that you have "certainty" about your interpretations is so delusional. You hold to fringe doctrines that the vast majority of INTELLIGENT and INFORMED Bible believers disagree with. So why would you have any "confidence" that your fringe beliefs are true? If every agrees that the sky is blue, but you say that it is green, then maybe it would be a little nuts to claim that you have "certainty" that the sky is really green. Maybe a little humility would serve you better.
The contradictions cannot be resolved by "looking for the original meaning of the words" because the contradictions exist in the original manuscripts. I would never claim that a bad translation was a real contradiction in the Bible.

You should not have said; " I agree that there is a consistent message". I see you twisting and squirming and doing all the things you generalize and accuse Christians of doing.

Good morning David,

You are right, I should not have simply said it had a "consistent message". I should have been more careful with my words and said that "different readers can each find their own fairly consistent message depending on what presuppositions they hold, despite the gross inconsistencies within itself as well as with history, science, and logic." But since I'd already said all that to you a thousand times in our many conversations over the last year I didn't think it would be necessary to repeat it. I expected you to understand. The fact that I need to explain myself is disappointing.

Your assertion that I am "twisting and squirming" is entirely unjustified. All I did was explain what I meant, and my explanation was completely consistent with what I have been saying to your for a full year now. You are the one who took a SENTENCE FRAGMENT OUT OF CONTEXT and TWISTED IT in your effort to force me to say something that obviously contradicts what I believe, what I said in the immediate context of my comment, as well as what I've said in a thousand posts on this forum. So there is no justification for you assertion that I am "twisting and turning".

And worse, you have now ignored what I actually wrote twice in a row. Look at it again. Look at the words highlighted red. That's what I really believe and you know it. It was ludicrous for you to take the first part of the sentence and press it as an absolute while ignoring my explanation that I gave in context. You didn't deal with what I actually wrote at all. You ignored the main point. It's like you are not even trying to be rational. The whole point of my comment was that the Bible is obviously not trustworthy as a guide because it is so ambiguous that no one can agree about what it says. For you to ignore what I obviously meant is bad enough. It's totally insane for you to then take a sentence fragment out of context, twist my intent, and use that as the basis for your accusation that I am "twisting and turning".






Whilst you disagree with prophecy which I believe has been fulfilled and the truth of God's word has proven reliable in the past, it is on that basis that I take God's word as trustworthy. I see prophecy being fulfilled in our generation. You do not want to accept these things and you reject any evidence anyone presents to you. You reject everything anyone presents to you that does not fit in with your own thoughts.
Your assertion that I reject any evidence anyone presents is as false, rude, and absurd. I have only rejected your false and unsupported assertions. What evidence have you presented? You merely make assertions like "the existence of the Bible is a miracle." That's not evidence David.
You can think it is rude, but I do not merely make assertions like the one you have quoted. That is only a fraction of what I have presented and so once again you distort the truth to put the other person in a bad light while presenting yourself in the best light. I am cheesed off with this type of conversation.

I don't merely "think" it is rude, everyone can see that it is rude. But I can see why you are upset. You took my comment in an absolute sense, as if I were saying that you never have given any evidence of any kind for any of your beliefs. It should be obvious that was not my intent since such a claim would be absurd. When I said you "merely make assertions" I was speaking only in general terms, not absolutely, and I gave you a specific example of what I meant from a comment you made (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?4783-The-Word-Of-GOD!-What-is-it&p=55791#post55791) within the last week. So your complaint is unjustified. I gave evidence for my assertion by accurately quoting your own words.

I'm glad you are "cheesed off at this kind of conversation" because I am too. At least there's something we can agree about! :p




This is your problem: I consistently challenge you to present evidence based on logic and facts but you can't do it, so you make false assertions about me rejecting "everything that anyone presents" to me that doesn't fit with my own thoughts. That's not true David. I am an open minded man who freely admits when I am wrong. I have no dogmas to defend. Your assertions are quite ironic because you are actually describing yourself quite accurately. You must reject much science based on evidence because you are defending your false dogmas. You have no evidence supporting your belief in the Bible and you know it because you have not been able to support your claims no matter how many times I've asked. Your attempts are blatantly fallacious. Even if the Bible contained some prophecies, it wouldn't prove that it is all true and trustworthy. You take verses out of context. You make absurd assertions like "The existence of the Bible is a miracle" - that's the primary claim the Muslims make about the Quran! They say that the Quran itself is such a miraculous book that no other proof is needed. And ironically, not how the Quran itself blames people for refusing to receive it! You accuse me of similar things.
If the whole of mankind and Jinn were to gather together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support. And We have explained to man, in this Qur'an, every kind of similitude: Yet the greater part of men refuse ( to receive it ) except with ingratitude. (Isra 88-89)
So here is what we need to do David. It's tedious to constantly be talking past each other. We agree about most things because we are not raving lunatics. Therefore, when we come to a disagreement, our job is to ISOLATE the reason for the disagreement. Then we can AGREE about the reason for the disagreement, and we will come to understand each other's position. If we do this, conversation becomes both fun and fruitful. Otherwise we'll just be talking past each other.
Please stop generalizing and be specific as I have asked. I have challenged your logic and in generalizing you have made things worse by introducing further ambiguities. I have given you evidence and reasons which you simply deny and dismiss. You can argue against this and so we shall continue for ever to do the same. Please stop generalizing and introducing the arguments like the Quran. Our objective is to understand the word of God as we should and we should both be looking to correct the error which have been introduced by the transcribers and translators. Until we agree the wording and the message from the individual authors, we cannot agree what the Bible is telling us.

I have been specific. What evidence have you given that I simply "deny and dismiss"? I have always given you very SPECIFIC REASONS and SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that show why your arguments fail. The fact that you reply with more empty assertions only proves my point. If I have denied or dismissed some real evidence without good reason, all you need to do is quote the SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that I simply "rejected without reason." But you never do that. You just make empty generalized assertions about nothingness. There's no way for me to even know what you are talking about because you have not said which argument I dismissed without reason. Your comments are empty. Please try a little harder to be SPECIFIC about your charges. Please try to avoid EMPTY GENERALIZATIONS or I won't have any way to know what you are talking about.

Your opposition to "generalizations" in general makes no sense. They are not the source of ambiguities. On the contrary, they are the root of understanding because they remove ambiguities and show overarching patterns that unite seemingly distinct phenomena. They are the root of all disciplined thought like science and math. Do you not understand that the "holy grail" of physics is the Grand Unified Theory that would explain all reality in one grand generalized equation? That's the ultimate "generalization". And mathematics is nothing if not a set of generalizations. There are, of course, two kinds of generalizations. There are the generalizations like science and math that describe aspects of reality, and there are empty "generalizations" that have no content like your accusations against me.

Case in point: My examples of how believers in all religions share common beliefs about their different holy books is a valid generalization that gives real insight into the fact that religious believers tend to delude themselves about their holy books. This is obvious because they can't all be true. This fact should cause any intelligence believer to stop and reflect on the fact that they must have some real evidence for their beliefs because they could just as well have believed in some other religion. That's why I keep bringing this up. You have not dealt with this fact yet.

You asked me to be specific but you failed to specify what I'm supposed to be specific about. If you ask me a specific question I will answer just as specifically.

Your comment contains a reference to the Bible as the "Word of God" even though I have shown that you have no justification to call it such. I have shown you very SPECIFICALLY why you have no foundation for your beliefs, and you have totally ignored all the evidence and reason I have presented. Here it is in a nutshell.

1) You have never given sufficient evidence to support your assertion that there are fulfilled prophecies.

2) You have never given reason to believe that all the books are inspired merely because there are some fulfilled prophecies in some of the books.

3) You have not dealt sufficiently with the many examples of gross errors, inconsistencies, and scientific absurdities in the Bible. For example, the Flood is a scientific impossibility. The birth narratives in Matthew and Luke are contradictory. It is impossible to harmonize all the details in the four Gospels concerning the death and resurrection of Christ. Etc.

I trust that's sufficiently "specific" for you. :winking0071:




The key is to actually engage what the other person says. I often get the feeling that you miss my point, misrepresent what I intended, or ignore it all together. That creates a sense of frustration in both of us. We need to actually engage what the other says in a meaningful way.
On this I agree and whilst I might miss some of your points, the same applies to you. We tend not to acknowledge every point that is made by way of reply. Instead of arguing about the point I have misinterpreted what you say, I have asked you what is it in the Bible you say has a consistent message. Either there is something that is consistent, or your words are meaningless and should not have been said. I was hoping that you have seen a consistent message (whether we agree or not) for that gives us a basis for discussion.

I'm glad we agree about this point. It is of the essence. But again we see the fundamental error in your approach. You took a sentence fragment out of context and now are hammering away on it as if it were the foundation stone of all my thought. It's quite ironic that you do this even as you say you agree that we should "actually engage what the other person says". You are not doing that when you take a sentence fragment and IGNORE everything else I said in the immediate context that also coheres with everything I've been saying to you for over a year!

I think it would be great to discuss the "consistent message" of the Bible, but you shouldn't start by putting words in my mouth. If you would like to pursue this topic, maybe it would be good to start a thread and I'll respond there.



I do not have a list that I can easily paste by way of reply. However, if we seriously do some exposition on some of these things, then we can take all this into account. It is easy for us to point out each other's mistakes and so we should be looking to correct the mistakes that others have introduced into the Bible. Either you want to correct the mistakes, which lead to getting closer to the truth and the consistent message from God, or you do not and just want to keep on saying it is full of error and inconsistency. One of us could have a problem. You have already changed your opinion of the Bible and I maintain that you did not found have the truth and have been taught and believed lies which are still in your mind to this day. I have not followed after the lies of men, and so have no reason to change that which I have come to believe in the Bible.

First, no one can "fix" the errors in the Bible without changing the Bible because the Bible has real errors in it. I'm not talking about errors in translation or copying. I'm talking about the documents in the original languages.

Second, why should we think to "fix" the Bible in the first place? If it is the Word of God, then why didn't God fix it? If he couldn't keep the errors out, why should we believe he was able to inspire it without error in the first place? Your position makes no sense at all.

Third, you constantly make false assertions that I "want" the Bible to be full of error and inconsistency. That is ludicrous! I was a BELIEVING CHRISTIAN who was disturbed by the TRUTH that the Bible contains errors and inconsistency. All honest Christians know this. Only the ignorant or the deluded could deny something so obvious.

Fourth, your constant assertion that I cannot find the solutions because I "have been taught and believed lies which are still in [my] mind to this day" is utterly nutty, dude! It's off the charts insane - totally disconnected from reality. I don't even believe the Bible is generally true, let alone any of the doctrines believers have invented over the millennia. And I always give you good reasons for my understanding that have nothing to do with anything that I have been "taught". Your comment is the essence of irony because YOU are the one who one who believes in dogmas taught by men, not me. You follow the teachings of a man - one Dr. John Thomas - who invented the sect of the Christadelphians. I have come to this conclusion because you hold to a specific set of dogmas that is unique to that one specific denomination of Christianity. Other groups hold some of the same dogmas, but only the Christadelphians hold to all the doctrines you profess. So hows that for irony? I am the one with no dogmas, but you think I am the one following the teachings of men. I've brought this to your attention many times and you have never engaged me in a rational discussion about it.



If I was to say God is 99% truthful that implies I think God is 1% untruthful. I cannot accept God is untruthful. God is perfect and he as the creator and who knows us, requires us to strive for perfection, which has been demonstrated in the person of his only begotten Son. Form your perspective, the Bible is not the work of God and is purely the work of men without inspiration from God. You might want to cling on to that opinion, but I shall be holding to mine. One way to begin a dialogue is to consider the history referred to in the Bible and agree the history which is true. Maybe from there we can look at prophecy that has been fulfilled in history related to that which we have already agreed is true.

Your beliefs have no basis in reality. If God were only half as trustworthy as the average dentist, there would be no dispute about his existence. Christianity has destroyed the meaning of the word "trustworthy." There is not one thing that you can actually "trust" God to do for you. NOT ONE. So you change the meaning of "trustworthy" to be "God will always do what he said." That means that you can just quibble over what "God said" until you reduce it to ABSOLUTELY NOTHING relevant to life in this world or anything that can be confirmed. Wonderful. So now saying "God is trustworthy" is utterly and absolutely meaningless because you know that you cannot TRUST GOD to do anything. All prayers are vanity. This is what you admit when you say that "God is trustworthy" means only that he will "do" things that cannot be verified (hence, cannot be trusted).

This is the vanity of religion. It's nothing but a bunch of empty words that give FALSE CONFIDENCE in a God that cannot actually be trusted to do anything for anyone in any situation.

And again, you make a false equivalence between our positions when you say "You might want to cling on to that opinion, but I shall be holding to mine." Not all opinions are equally valid. I have evidence for my opinions. You do not. That's the whole point of this debate.

As for history in the Bible - it means nothing if some of it is true. The Koran contains some true history. That says nothing about the general truth of its religious claims. You would know this if you did not reject "generalized thinking" (which is the essence of intelligence).


Maybe from there we can look at prophecy that has been fulfilled in history related to that which we have already agreed is true.

We've already done that and concluded that there is no evidence that would satisfy a rational skeptic. If you would like to try again, please start or point me to a thread where you are presenting evidence for fulfilled prophecies and I will answer.



Again that is your opinion biassed to reflect your conclusion which is not the conclusion I am drawing. Inspired men, might not have been knowledgeable compared to 21st century thinking. We do not know if all the prophets could write or that that which had been revealed to them was written down by scribes who would hear the words of the prophet. How many people today cannot write? Are people ignorant because they cannot write? The prophets did not have to understand everything that was revealed to them. The job of the prophets was to deliver the message. Why assume the message is not the word of God, because of the person who delivers it. You will be asking for our mail to be delivered to our mail boxes by people who have degrees in logistics. That sounds ridiculous, yet you do not see how ridiculous your argument is to me.

First, it is not true that my opinion is "biased to reflect my conclusion". I explicitly told you that I was not satisfied with that solution even when when I was a Bible believing Christian. I wanted a solution but was not willing to accept something like that which fails on many points.

Second, I never said that the "inspired men" were supposed to have any knowledge of 21st century thinking. But the God who supposedly inspired the Bible is supposed to have all knowledge, so it is absurd to say that the Bible is both "inspired" and yet filled with errors based on the ignorant limited perspective of primitive men who wrote it. If God allowed all that human ignorance into the Bible, then why should we believe any of it? And how are we supposed to sort out the false from the true? Obviously, we need to use our fallible human understanding, and would have to develop a SCIENCE of Bible interpretation! But that would lead to endless disputes since there is no way for anyone to prove which interpretation is correct and besides, you totally reject SCIENCE as "inadequate" so you would have to reject the Bible "Science" too. In short, you position is logically incoherent.

Third, you "mailman" analogy fails because the in your analogy the mailman not only delivers the message, but writes it down too.



Let's get beyond generalizations, stop referring the likes of the Muslims and the Quran or crazy Christians and deal with specifics in the Bible. I will leave you to continue your style of argument with others. I have had enough of this type of argument. I only ever wanted to reason from the Bible and get down to the truth of the message and leaning on your expertise of Hebrew and Greek or that of other's knowledge of these languages in order to get to the original meanings. Not reaching agreement on everything in the Bible is not reason for rejecting everything in the Bible. If by working through the Bible it is possible to get to a position where 51% of the Bible is seen as true, that is good enough for me, and the remaining 49% has to be worked at. Lets say the 49% requires some faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Getting to 51% is more that half and is therefore grounds for not rejecting the Bible as a whole. However, for the sake of argument and for the pursuance of truth, I shall not make the assumption that we shall get to 51%. How we achieve this daunting task is the problem set before us.

I have been "dealing with specifics in the Bible" in all our conversations for the past year. I have also spoken other religions to help you see that your belief in the Bible appears to be similar to the bias that all believers have for their own holy books. If you can't see and understand this, then you could be deluded without knowing it. If your arguments for the Bible are the same as those of Muslims and Mormons, then why do you have any confidence in them It would logically inconsistent.

But I understand that your real interest is in discussing the meaning of the Bible from a believer's perspective. That's cool. I can appreciate that. And I'm willing to discuss that with you.

As for a Bible (God's Word) that is 51% true - you and I have very different standards! Would you accept a math book that was only 51% true? A chemistry book? Half of a doctors patients would DIE if he were only 51% accurate in his work. I find it quite ironic (and revealing) that you have such low standards for the Bible. You are implicitly admitting that the book is worse (less accurate, less true) than the vast majority of scientific texts written by humans. Fascinating.

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough
07-05-2013, 12:43 PM
Hey David.

What evidence? You routinely make these statements and then provide no evidence.

I'd like to confirm the truth of that assertion. There are times when David provides some evidence, but in my estimation he more frequently merely makes assertions without evidence, and frequently ignores evidence that contradicts his assertions.


Also you have questioned the dating methods accuracy many times, so how do we know the evidence was dated correctly? How do we know the evidence was from king Davids time or Babylon? This is a double standard you Christians routinely make. When it suits you the dating methods are never questioned and always legit.

That's an extremely important point. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Believers tend to accept or reject science depending on whether or not it fits their beliefs. That is the definition of cognitive bias.


It's funny how you tell people how blinkered they are for rejecting evidence you never posted. But YOU are guilty of rejecting established facts all the time when it doesn't suit your beliefs. By your logic that means you are blinkered beyond belief.

Again, I'd like to confirm that observation. David show extreme skepticism for established facts that contradict his beliefs, and no skeptics for the things he believes. Again, that is a textbook example of a cognitive bias.



Please post all this evidence you claim exists.
This would be great. And even better, I would like him to post a quote where I rejected his "evidence" without giving good reasons.

Mystykal
07-07-2013, 12:30 AM
Hello David,

The voice that evolution has is the evidence that scientists are interpreting. Evolution speaks through fossils and the code of DNA, this tells scientists how things evolved.



Quite the contrary, I am most certainly keeping up with current archaeological findings, so I repeat: there is no verifiable evidence that Noah, Abraham or Moses ever existed. As for David only one reference to the House of David has been found, and that says nothing about whether he was a ruler of a small tribal region or a larger area. Most current biblical historians believe that Davids kingdom was nowhere near as big as the Bible claims...there is just no archaeological evidence for it. Without Noah, Moses, and Abraham the whole Bible loses its validity.



The overused justification of why god doesn't heal disease because people don't having enough faith is lame, and blaming the worlds problems on Adam and Eve is ridiculous. Doctors don't require their patients to have faith before they try and heal them, neither does faith play any part in people showing mercy to strangers. Why does god require faith and belief before he will do anything to help people? All the Bible does is threaten people with damnation if they don't believe. Would you demand that your child have faith in you before you would take them to a doctor if they were sick? I hope not!

I don't have to make excuses for not believing in god, just like I don't have to make excuses for not believing in pink unicorns. I see nothing positive about the nature of the Bible's message, since it starts with a biased framework set up by a immoral tyrannical god who's sole objective is to obtain peoples worship and obedience.

Take care,
Rose

Hi Rose:

You said , "All the Bible does is threaten people with damnation if they don't believe. Would you demand that your child have faith in you before you would take them to a doctor if they were sick? I hope not!I don't have to make excuses for not believing in god, just like I don't have to make excuses for not believing in pink unicorns. I see nothing positive about the nature of the Bible's message, since it starts with a biased framework set up by a immoral tyrannical god who's sole objective is to obtain peoples worship and obedience.

So where do you get the idea that the Bible is set up by "a tyranical GOD"? Do you seriously believe that death and destruction is a result of GOD? You have already stated that you do NOT believe in GOD any more than "pink unicorns"... OK Then why do you insist that the TRUE GOD Model is so evil. Perhaps the model you so dislike does not exist in reality. Perhaps you should discard your silly GOD Model and just meditate into the void... You keep striking out at a GOD that only exists in the minds of angry people trying to blame the ills of the world on a GOD that is not even real! At least be consistent and don't blame GOD for all the evil in the world. It does not make you look like a logical person. Trying to create a scape goat for the ills of the world is pointless. You are smarter than that I am sure.

Namaste,

Mystykal