- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,06:58) Ed J, Thanks for confirming that the bible is wrong on these points.
Hi WIT,The bible isn't wrong, only your understanding of it.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgYes, Ed, and the Titanic wasn't sinking. It was merely overcome by circumstances.
It's really simple, Ed.
The bible says that God set the sun and the moon in the firmament, which you have for several posts now identified as the earth's atmosphere. Yet, you say that the sun and the moon were never in the firmament.
I understand that you're not going to admit the contradiction, but it is pretty clear to anyone who isn't being dishonest.
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,07:48) Yes, Ed, and the Titanic wasn't sinking. It was merely overcome by circumstances. It's really simple, Ed.
The bible says that God set the sun and the moon in the firmament, which you have for several posts now identified as the earth's atmosphere. Yet, you say that the sun and the moon were never in the firmament.
I understand that you're not going to admit the contradiction, but it is pretty clear to anyone who isn't being dishonest.
Hi WIT,Once again you are trying to blame God for the translators choice of words
that you are obviously trying to 'nitpick' over, in an attempt to find fault.Your understanding of Hebrew is lacking severely.
Hebrew doesn't say “in” nor does it say “over”,
those words are inferred here, perhaps
you were never taught this truth!God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd J,
My understanding of Hebrew is not under scrutiny here. I did not translate these verses.
Are you calling into question the scholars who translated these passages?
Are you claiming to have a better translation than what they provided?
If so, please enlighten us with Ed J's proper translation of Genesis 1.
Hi WIT,
The bible was written to bring us understanding of God.
The mechanics of the cosmos is not what the bible is about.From our perspective we cannot tell how large the stars are nor
how far away they are without the advent of looking at them in parallax.So the stars are “up there”, this is true whether you deny it or not.
Do the stars being above the firmament shake your faith in God?
If it does, then you did not have much faith to begin with.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Jan. 11 2012,03:40) Hi WIT, The bible was written to bring us understanding of God.
The mechanics of the cosmos is not what the bible is about.
On the contrary, Genesis 1 is all about the cosmos. Why spend the very first chapter of the bible describing the construction of the cosmos if we're not supposed to pay any attention to it?If you are going to defend the creation account on the grounds that it was written to accommodate the perspective of humans at the time, I must ask, “Isn't the whole point of the bible divine revelation?” If God simply told men what they already knew or believed, where's the divine revelation in that? It would be far better if the book said nothing at all about the subject, rather than reinforce ancient notions that would clearly be easily exposed by future generations.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 09 2012,22:01) See what I am getting at? You would accuse me of being lacking in the basic knowledge that in fact Abraham did not kill his son.
Absolutely I see what you are saying, Stu; but you are wrong about how I would handle that situation.I have spoken to many here on the site who are new to the scriptures. And if they said something like “Abraham killed his son”, then I would say, “No, he didn't. He was willing to, but God stopped him. (Gen 22:1-12)”
Nick Hasson and many others here do what you are talking about. If someone is wrong, they'll just blow them off by saying, “I'm not going to read the Bible for you. Go read it and get back to me when you know what you're talking about.” They'll tell them to read the whole book of Matthew, when they could easily list the ONE verse that actually applies to the other person's statement.
But not me. I would be PLEASED and HAPPY to educate them and point them to the scriptures they could read for verification of what I said.
Stu, what if I was here claiming that life on earth started when space aliens “planted” us here? And you asked an honest question about my theory (because to you, it is beyond belief)?
Would you then like it if I replied, “Stu, why don't you go read all about this theory, and get back to me when you know all about it”?
See? Here's the deal: YOU think the “space alien” theory is asinine, and wouldn't waste one minute of your time actually researching into what you think is a ridiculous sham. So instead, you would just pick certain items that you know refute that theory, and ask the person who believes in the theory to explain away those items, thinking that he should surely know how to defend HIS OWN theory.
I don't want to read the blind watchmaker, or whatever. I think your theory is so far from reality that it is laughable, and I will not spend any of my precious time reading scientific guesses about what I already know. So when I ask relevant questions about this loophole or that loophole in your theory, then either ANSWER the questions, or admit that you are unable or unwilling to do so. DON'T send me off to read a bunch of garbage with which I will not agree, okay?
If there is a particular paragraph or teaching in the blind watchmaker that actually answers my question, then post ONLY that paragraph for me to consider. I don't need to read the whole book, do I?
Deal?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,08:55) Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 11 2012,03:40) Hi WIT, The bible was written to bring us understanding of God.
The mechanics of the cosmos is not what the bible is about.
1) On the contrary, Genesis 1 is all about the cosmos. Why spend the very first chapter of the bible describing the construction of the cosmos if we're not supposed to pay any attention to it?2) If you are going to defend the creation account on the grounds that it was written to accommodate the perspective of humans at the time, I must ask, “Isn't the whole point of the bible divine revelation?” If God simply told men what they already knew or believed, where's the divine revelation in that? It would be far better if the book said nothing at all about the subject, rather than reinforce ancient notions that would clearly be easily exposed by future generations.
Hi WIT,1) I agree with this.
2) I have pointed out to you that there are no scientific errors in the biblical account of creation.
But please feel free to ask further questions, if you still have doubts; OK?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,08:55) “Isn't the whole point of the bible divine revelation?” If God simply told men what they already knew or believed, where's the divine revelation in that?
Hi WIT,The bible has told us many things not previously known,
The Earths rotation(Gen.1:4), The Earths orbit around the sun,
and even the tilt of the Earths axis (Gen.1:14). Rock-solid consistency!
Lets take a closer look into Astronomy and also Biochemistry and Digestion.1) Astronomy: The Earth is round and that the Universe is ever expanding…
Isaiah 40:22 …the circle of the earth, and …that stretcheth out
the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He …hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Gravitational forces hold it's position)eth: suffix -used to form the archaic third person singular present in verbs <doeth>
stretch: to extend in length, to extend or expand, to enlarge,
to become extended in length or breadth or both,
to extend over a continuous period.Heavens: the expanse of space, celestial.
spread: to open or expand over a large area, to stretch out: extend,
to distribute over an area, to become dispersed, the act or process of spreading.2) Biochemistry: Pig is an unhealthy animal to consume for sustenance.
Leviticus 11:7 …the swine …he is unclean to you.
Pigs are scavenger animals, eating both dung and carcass remains.
Toxins are excreted out of the sweat glands of mammals, pigs don't sweat!
Plus: Without the advent of refrigeration, pork meat is susceptible to trichinosis.3) Digestion: Slaughtered animals that “ARE” to be eaten,
must first be bleed; and dead animals are not fit for human consumption.
Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Deut.15:23 …thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Leviticus 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgHi WIT,
“The effect” always points to “the cause”.
YHVH is quite consistent in this factual premise,
let me give you some examples of this biblical truth.1) The effect(Gematria) points to the cause(intelligent designer).
2) The effect(the cosmos) points to the cause(a creator).
3) The effect(the bible) points to the cause(God).God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgEd J,
And now we're done.
That has to be the fifth time you've written that same post to me, (about the heavens, the pig, and digestion), and it is all the more ironic given the discussion we just had about the “expanse”. I have corrected your errors on all three points, but you continue to repeat them.
It doesn't make any sense for me to try point anything else out to you. I am out of patience.
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 09 2012,22:07) Can I take that as an apology from you, that on this occasion you realise I never made those claims, that no scientific theory makes those claims and you putting those words in my mouth really rules out your own credibility? Thanks.
Now, what are you actually asking about? Perhaps you could have a go at just asking a question without telling me a wrong version of what you insist I must believe along with it.
Stuart
FOR STU AND WIT:Okay guys, I can see that you are willing to dish it out, but not take it.
Stu, I COULD look back through various threads, and find the post to me where you called living beings “CREATIONS”, thereby justifying my question about how life “created itself”. But I don't have the time, nor would I care to be that petty.
I could also address your comments to me about Princess using your “I hear hooves, so I KNOW it’s horses” analogy. But coming off as wittier than you is not high on my list of priorities.
Anyway, it seems you guys aren't taking my points seriously because I mess with you by using words like “created” and “invented”. I will keep my questions serious and to the point as I hope you will keep your answers the same.
I'm asking WHY the first cells would have started to exist with a reproductive capability in the first place.
It seems much more likely to me, that if life started spontaneously, without intelligent design, it would have been a one time thing, and when those life forms died out, that would have been the end of it.
I imagine that the dna involved in the reproductive process of cells is quite complex, and I imagine that even IF A connected with B in a fluke, and caused what we call “life”, it is still highly unlikely that A would have connected all the way down the line to Z, forming a wonderfully functioning life form capable of reproducing itself.
Your comments?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,09:36) Ed J, And now we're done.
Hi WIT,Until we meet again, then; ta.
Let me know when you 'think'
something else is inconstant.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (TimothyVI @ Jan. 10 2012,04:30) I think that you have it all wrong Mike. Jesus never “dumbed down” anyting to make it easier to understand.
Tim
I believe you are wrong, Tim. Imagine God telling a prophet about creation 100 years ago. Would it have done God any good to speak of sub-atomic particles, DNA, string theory or whatever – to a person who would have no idea what He was talking about?Now, you are asking about the firmament between the waters, right? Is there water below us at any given time? Yes. Is there water above us at any given time? Yes. The firmament (sky) is where we breathe above the waters of the sea and below the waters in the clouds, I guess.
When God flooded the earth, He not only caused the waters of the heavens to rain down, but also opened the springs of the deep:
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.See? Water ABOVE the firmament, and water BELOW it.
Perhaps I'm missing your point?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 10 2012,09:16) You wanted to know about fish crawling out of the sea to become cacti.
What I want to know, is why the guy on the nature program showed me the fossil of the “first fish” to grow legs and crawl out of the sea, ONLY TO FIND A VAST FOREST OF PLANTS AND INSECTS ALREADY LIVING THERE.I want to know how, what, and why the “real first fish”, (WAY BEFORE their “first fish”), grew legs, crawled onto land, and BECAME this forest and these insects.
Any idea?
Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 10 2012,09:16) So you don't take the creation account literally? If not, why not?
No, because I personally believe that the “six days” spoken of refer to a much longer time period, which is often the case elsewhere in scripture. For example, it is said that a day to God is like a thousand years to us.Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,09:36) Ed J, And now we're done.
That has to be the fifth time you've written that same post to me, (about the heavens, the pig, and digestion), and it is all the more ironic given the discussion we just had about the “expanse”. I have corrected your errors on all three points, but you continue to repeat them.
It doesn't make any sense for me to try point anything else out to you. I am out of patience.
Hi WIT,You must not have very much patience.
It's not the same post, but it is the same material
that I posted to you now in three threads, where you
question the validity of the bible with regards to it telling
us things that were not previously known. These are three
examples of what not previously known that science has proven.I take it you don't like to lose.
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,04:43) FOR STU AND WIT: Okay guys, I can see that you are willing to dish it out, but not take it.
Here's what I wrote, and you ignored, in my last post to you:Quote But, there is a larger point that you keep missing. My knowledge and understanding of evolution is cursory and incomplete because it's NOT critical to my worldview. You seem to think that it's a contest between evolution and the bible, but it's not. They can BOTH be wrong. Let me repeat that since you keep missing it. Evolution could be discredited tomorrow, and the bible would still be wrong and unreliable. Do you understand the point I am making here?
You wrote:
Quote I want to know how, what, and why the “real first fish”, (WAY BEFORE their “first fish”), grew legs, crawled onto land, and BECAME this forest and these insects. Any idea?
Here's what I wrote, and you ignored, in my last post to you:
Quote Fish did not evolve into cacti, according to evolutionary theory. Do you understand that?
You wrote:
Quote Now, you are asking about the firmament between the waters, right? Is there water below us at any given time? Yes. Is there water above us at any given time? Yes. The firmament (sky) is where we breathe above the waters of the sea and below the waters in the clouds, I guess. When God flooded the earth, He not only caused the waters of the heavens to rain down, but also opened the springs of the deep:
Genesis 7:11
In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month—on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.See? Water ABOVE the firmament, and water BELOW it.
Perhaps I'm missing your point?
If we take your definition of firmament this is how Genesis 1:7 reads:
“Thus God made the [sky], and divided the waters which were under the [sky] from the waters which were above the [sky]; and it was so.”
Do you not see a problem with that?
You wrote:
Quote No, because I personally believe that the “six days” spoken of refer to a much longer time period, which is often the case elsewhere in scripture. For example, it is said that a day to God is like a thousand years to us. Why? Didn't God just speak things into existence? Was he talking really slowly? What would lead you to believe that it could not be six literal days? (After all, each day is succeeded by the phrase, “So the evening and the morning were the [nth] day.”)
Do you not think it possible for God to do it in six literal days?
Quote (Ed J @ Jan. 11 2012,09:22) Quote (WhatIsTrue @ Jan. 11 2012,08:55) “Isn't the whole point of the bible divine revelation?” If God simply told men what they already knew or believed, where's the divine revelation in that?
Hi WIT,The bible has told us many things not previously known,
The Earths rotation(Gen.1:4), The Earths orbit around the sun,
and even the tilt of the Earths axis (Gen.1:14). Rock-solid consistency!
Lets take a closer look into Astronomy and also Biochemistry and Digestion.1) Astronomy: The Earth is round and that the Universe is ever expanding…
Isaiah 40:22 …the circle of the earth, and …that stretcheth out
the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Job 26:7 He …hangeth the earth upon nothing. (Gravitational forces hold it's position)eth: suffix -used to form the archaic third person singular present in verbs <doeth>
stretch: to extend in length, to extend or expand, to enlarge,
to become extended in length or breadth or both,
to extend over a continuous period.Heavens: the expanse of space, celestial.
spread: to open or expand over a large area, to stretch out: extend,
to distribute over an area, to become dispersed, the act or process of spreading.2) Biochemistry: Pig is an unhealthy animal to consume for sustenance.
Leviticus 11:7 …the swine …he is unclean to you.
Pigs are scavenger animals, eating both dung and carcass remains.
Toxins are excreted out of the sweat glands of mammals, pigs don't sweat!
Plus: Without the advent of refrigeration, pork meat is susceptible to trichinosis.3) Digestion: Slaughtered animals that “ARE” to be eaten,
must first be bleed; and dead animals are not fit for human consumption.
Genesis 9:4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
Deut.15:23 …thou shalt not eat the blood thereof; thou shalt pour it upon the ground as water.
Leviticus 22:8 That which dieth of itself, or is torn with beasts, he shall not eat to defile himself therewith.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Wow! You agree with Muslims not to eat the pig, do you eat pork ED?Shalom BD,
muslims are irreverent here, and I don't agree with them!
Pigs are scavenger animals, they are unclean to eat.
Kosher law forbids the eating of pig. (Lev.11:7-7)B'shem
YHVHQuote (mikeboll64 @ Jan. 11 2012,09:43) Okay guys, I can see that you are willing to dish it out, but not take it.
I’m not willing to put up with your dishonesty. Do you think I should?Quote Stu, I COULD look back through various threads, and find the post to me where you called living beings “CREATIONS”, thereby justifying my question about how life “created itself”. But I don't have the time, nor would I care to be that petty.
It is more serious than that. You are making accusations then shying away from them without acknowledging your dishonesty. Looks like I am better at keeping some of the commandments than you are. The one about false witness springs to mind, for some reason…Quote I could also address your comments to me about Princess using your “I hear hooves, so I KNOW it’s horses” analogy. But coming off as wittier than you is not high on my list of priorities.
I didn’t say that either. The expression is “When you hear the sound of hooves in the night, think first of horses not zebras”.THINK OF.
Not KNOW IT IS.
Sheesh, as you Americans tend to say.
Quote Anyway, it seems you guys aren't taking my points seriously because I mess with you by using words like “created” and “invented”. I will keep my questions serious and to the point as I hope you will keep your answers the same.
That is not the main reason you are not to be taken seriously. It is that you do not know anything about that which you oppose. You don’t know how evolution is a fact, or how natural selection is the only explanation we have to explain that fact. You don’t know how natural selection works according to that theory, and you appear incapable of understanding the evidence that supports that theory. Should we be taking that seriously?Quote I'm asking WHY the first cells would have started to exist with a reproductive capability in the first place. It seems much more likely to me, that if life started spontaneously, without intelligent design, it would have been a one time thing, and when those life forms died out, that would have been the end of it.
I imagine that the dna involved in the reproductive process of cells is quite complex, and I imagine that even IF A connected with B in a fluke, and caused what we call “life”, it is still highly unlikely that A would have connected all the way down the line to Z, forming a wonderfully functioning life form capable of reproducing itself.
What seems unlikely to you is irrelevant.I’ve already given my answer to this. Chemical micelles, which form spontaneously, can do something that looks very much like a form of cell division. Micelles look like cell membranes, and they have no DNA or any other kind of replicating molecule inside them; this “reproduction” is just a function of the spontaneous distribution of surface energy amongst the molecules on those micelles. Now, do you have enough chemistry or biochemistry to keep up with the next part?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
