The Christian topic  permalink

Jesus never existed

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 121 - 170 of 232
  • Message 121

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Wednesday, 17th March 2010

    Not Emeritus Professors at Oxford and even the "experts" on Harry Potter are probably confined to the Internet like BarryMonkey2 and Sir Bernard. 

    I am an actually an heir, in academic terms, of Vermes (his tutee was my tutor) but I disagree with his thesis here. Why? Because my own PhD thesis directly studied the terminology which Josephus uses in the TF, and I feel that many of the comments and terminology attributed to Josephus are not in keeping with the rest of his works.

    You might like to recall though that Vermes is hardly an impartial academic - I on the other hand am an agnostic smiley - winkeye

    Regardless, feel free to slander me as an 'expert on harry potter' - I would advise you to go and read my thesis, but I fear that might be a waste of time for both of us.

    Report message1

  • Message 122

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    I believed you wished names of some Higher Critics.

    Here are some, which also includes the Daniel experience!




    Reply,



    Many higher critics belong to the cult of evolution, as they know no power higher than themselves, and that way, they are not accountable to anyone for their actions…!




    A short list of the names of 22 Higher Critics of the Bible

    “The phrase "the higher criticism" became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th cent.), Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).[3]

    In academic circles today, this is the body of work properly considered "the higher criticism", though the phrase is sometimes applied to earlier or later work using similar methods.

    Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars, of the Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) in the mid-nineteenth century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, Georg Hegel and the French rationalists.

    These ideas were imported to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, in particular, by George Eliot's translations of Strauss's The Life of Jesus (1846) and Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1854). In 1860 seven liberal Anglican theologians began the process of incorporating this historical criticism into Christian doctrine in Essays and Reviews, causing a five year storm of controversy which completely overshadowed the arguments over Darwin's newly published On the Origin of Species. Two of the authors were indicted for heresy and lost their jobs by 1862, but in 1864 had the judgement overturned on appeal. La Vie de Jésus (1863), the seminal work by a Frenchman, Ernest Renan (1823–92), continued in the same tradition as Strauss and Feuerbach. In Catholicism, L'Evangile et l'Eglise (1902), the magnum opus by Alfred Loisy against the Essence of Christianity of Adolf von Harnack and La Vie de Jesus of Renan, gave birth to the modernist crisis (1902–61). Some scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann, have used higher criticism of the Bible to "demythologize" it.”

    [Source – Wikipedia]

    Also, the histories of these men will be found in more detail in the various respected encyclopaedias!



    A Case in Question: Daniel and the Higher Critics…!

    THE CASE OF THE MISSING MONARCH

    “Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, a “son” of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown. (Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30)

    Critics long assailed this point, for Belshazzar’s name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible.

    Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings.



    Higher Critic Ferdinand Hitzig

    Thus, in 1850, Ferdinand Hitzig said that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer’s imagination. But does not Hitzig’s opinion strike you as a bit rash? After all, would the absence of any mention of this king—especially in a period about which historical records were admittedly scanty—really prove that he never existed?


    The 1854 Discovery

    At any rate, in 1854 some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur in what is now southern Iraq. These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for “Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son.”


    The Mouths of the Higher Critics Silenced and yet, critics were not satisfied?

    Higher Critic H. F. Talbot

    Even critics had to agree: This was the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel.
    Yet, critics were not satisfied. “This proves nothing,” wrote one named H. F. Talbot.

    He charged that the son in the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king.

    H. F. Talbot silenced in 1855

    Just a year after Talbot’s remarks were published, though, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff.





    Belshazzar, king—a coregent with his father.



    No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time. These tablets also showed that during these periods, he “entrusted the kingship” of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar). At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king—a coregent with his father.

    Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus. However, both objections collapse upon examination.


    Higher Critics silenced again!


    What the higher Critics Ignored or were ignorant of:

    “Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.”

    Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.” (Compare Matthew 1:1.)



    Would these arrogant, proud and stupid men not learn or admit anything?

    Daniel to be third ruler in the kingdom

    Further, the Bible account does allow for Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus.

    When terrified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words. (Daniel 5:7) Why third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were—by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar.

    So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of “badly garbled” history. On the contrary, Daniel—although not writing a history of Babylon—offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.



    And even today amateur higher critics, such as are here on the BBC board, and who mostly belong to the cult of evolution, also will show the same arrogant, proud and stupid mentality and still will not learn or admit anything, even from their higher critic forebears…?

    Daniel, just one example of the many

    The proof of Daniel’s authenticity about Belshazzar was there for those early higher critics to see and they ignored the hard factual evidence, but it seems that their belligerent inheritors, are just as arrogant and just as stupid and will swallow just about anything their cult high priests of evolution and higher criticism shove down their throats…!


    letusreason


    Report message2

  • Message 123

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    letusreason

    At what date do you think the book of Daniel was written?

    Regards

    Barry

    Report message3

  • Message 124

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Thursday, 18th March 2010


    “The phrase "the higher criticism" became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th cent.), Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).[3]
     

    This is ancient history. 18th-century historians were prone to get pretty much everything wrong. You can't reject modern Biblical criticism on the grounds that 18th-century writers got it wrong. That's ludicrous. And pathetic.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding -- I assumed you were talking about critics whose work still had some currency.

    Report message4

  • Message 125

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Gadfly63 (U13772111) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    If you visit Eastern Europe you will find families with the name Iucal, its a name mentioned in the OT. Whats wrong with Iesus? Have you never seen this spelling?

    How do you cope with Greek translations?

    Report message5

  • Message 126

    , in reply to message 123.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    >>letusreason

    At what date do you think the book of Daniel was written?

    Regards

    Barry <<


    Not that I will not answer it but, is there a reason why you ask? Do you have a date in mind yourself?

    Regards,


    letusreason

    Report message6

  • Message 127

    , in reply to message 126.

    Posted by Barry_Monkey2 (U912349) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    Hi letusreason

    I would say second century BCE, and my reasons for asking are a) I enjoy debate! and b) you seem to suggest a date which is different to the widely held common conception.

    Regards

    Phil

    Report message7

  • Message 128

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    Hi letusreason
    and who mostly belong to the cult of evolution, also will show the same arrogant, proud and stupid mentality and still will not learn or admit anything 

    What is the 'cult of evolution'?

    Report message8

  • Message 129

    , in reply to message 126.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    The trouble with your long cut and paste message, letusreason, is that it deals with trivial inessential matters . The main achievement of the 'Higher Criticism' was to show that the Bible was the work of many different writers, men of their time, knowldge and beliefs, and not the work of a supernatural person. Further , they showed that the Bible is not a factually-accurate historical record.

    As I said previously, modern Bible criticism has moved on from this , but has supported rather than reduce these conclusions . Late 19th and 20th-century Biblical literalism has atempted to deny the conclusions and reaffirm the Bible as the work of God, but this claim lacks hard evidence. .

    Report message9

  • Message 130

    , in reply to message 127.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    Hello Barry,

    >>I would say second century BCE, and my reasons for asking are a) I enjoy debate! and b) you seem to suggest a date which is different to the widely held common conception. <<

    That is correct Barry!

    If I may Barry, I'd like to get some information that I have relating to both sides and present them a little later, as I am at work at the moment, on my tea break and don't wish to rush the matter!

    It is an interesting discussion, as I have met people before, who believe as you do on the 2nd century BCE date!

    Kind Regards,


    letusreason

    Report message10

  • Message 131

    , in reply to message 122.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    letusreason. When you going to start?

    Cult of evolution? smiley - doh It's people who accept hard scientific evidence. Those who don't are deniers of reality.

    The Battle of Waterloo happened. Proof that Sharpe really existed.

    Baker Street really exists. Proof that Sherlock Holmes really existed.

    King's Cross station exists. Proof that Harry Potter really exists.

    Higher critics? Do they sit in high chairs?

    The book of Daniel was written when? 200BC ? 400 BC ? 600 BC ?

    Who knows? We know Daniel was a king of some hill tribes. Big deal.

    The difference with evolution is that we have hard, testable evidence. You can jabber all you want and point at your book of mistakes but evolution is still true and creation is still for the dogs.

    Report message11

  • Message 132

    , in reply to message 126.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    The sad truth about the book of Daniel:

    The text contains a number of Greek words; yet the Greek occupation of the area did not occur until the 4th century BCE.

    One of the musical instruments mentioned in Daniel 3:5 and in subsequent passages did not exist until developed in 2nd century BCE Greece.

    About 180 BCE, Jeshua ben Sira listed the heroes of the Jewish faith, including "Enoch, Noah and Abraham through to Nehemiah;" 2 Daniel is not mentioned - presumably because Jeshua is unaware of him. This would indicate that the book of Daniel was written after that time.

    Daniel 11:31 (and elsewhere) refers to "the abominable thing that causes desolation." This appears to refer to the erection of a statue of Zeus in the Jerusalem temple in 167 BCE, and would indicate that the book was written later than that date.


    And there's more leading to:

    Many Liberal Christians believe that the book was really written many centuries after Daniel's time, during the Maccabean revolt against the Greek occupying forces in 168-164 BCE


    www.religioustoleran...


    .

    Report message12

  • Message 133

    , in reply to message 131.

    Posted by diksleksik (U14059681) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    Hi Berni
    Higher critics? Do they sit in high chairs? 
    Well you would have thought so. they are critics of a fairy tale after all. smiley - winkeye

    Report message13

  • Message 134

    , in reply to message 124.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    >>Message 124 - posted by anti-intellectual (U7547242) , 1 Hour Ago

    “The phrase "the higher criticism" became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th cent.), Johann Salomo Semler (1725-91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752-1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918).[3]
    Quoted from this message


    This is ancient history. 18th-century historians were prone to get pretty much everything wrong. You can't reject modern Biblical criticism on the grounds that 18th-century writers got it wrong. That's ludicrous. And pathetic.

    Sorry for the misunderstanding -- I assumed you were talking about critics whose work still had some currency. <<


    Reply,


    You asked me for names of ‘higher critics’, so I gave you some from the 18th, 19th and 20th century and you shove them aside as if they do not matter and as if they have no influence on later generations of higher critics, especially one of the greatest church historians of his age or any age..Adolf Von Harnack!

    You then turn round and say that my reply is “ludicrous. And pathetic”, then you realised that it was you who asked me for names, without specification and then to cover your embarrassment and to divert it away from yourself, you come back with, “I assumed you were talking about critics whose work still had some currency.” That way you allow yourself to save face on the BBC board! You dismiss the older generation of higher critics, as if they mean nothing and had nothing to contribute to later generations…!


    >>“I assumed you were talking about critics whose work still had some currency.” <<

    Some of the most up to date modern higher critics are to be found with Christendom herself, both Catholic and Protestant!

    One such modern higher critic is Prof. Robert Eisenman, who is Professor of Middle East Religions and Archaeology and the Director of the Institute for the Study of Judeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach, USA.

    Many of these superfine modern apostles of higher criticism take off from what their higher critic ancestors left behind, be it good or bad and the writings of such men would have been recommended reading at their places of study and modern higher critics are influenced from the past, as these ones were influenced by previous generations and much is speculation, assumptions and the like and just as modern higher critics would seem to prove previous higher critics wrong, the future higher critics will do the same for the present higher critics; nothing changes, just the higher critics…!

    Previously, I mentioned, Belshazzar, Sargon and Pontius Pilate, as examples of how your glorious higher critics went silent and I notice, that you too have gone silent, because you have not acknowledged that these higher critics were wrong and it wasn’t all that too long ago from a historical perspective, so when you say,

    >>“I assumed you were talking about critics whose work still had some currency.” <<


    Robert Bultmann died in 1976, so how modern do you want them to be – 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010? It would seem that your problem is, is that nothing will be good enough for individuals like you, as the only thing you are really interested in is yourself, the opinions higher criticism and their continual assumptions...!

    "For the speech about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power. 19 For it is written: “I will make the wisdom of the wise [men] perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual [men] I will shove aside.” 20 Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness of what is preached to save those believing." [bible]


    You put as much faith in your high priests of higher criticism as the Greek did in their philosophers...Atlas held up the world, but the bible tells us, that the earth is spherical and hangs on nothing, another little snippet, that you went silent on or acknowledge!


    Goodbye!


    letusreason



    Report message14

  • Message 135

    , in reply to message 131.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Thursday, 18th March 2010

    >>letusreason. When you going to start?

    Cult of evolution? It's people who accept hard scientific evidence. Those who don't are deniers of reality.

    The Battle of Waterloo happened. Proof that Sharpe really existed.

    Baker Street really exists. Proof that Sherlock Holmes really existed.

    King's Cross station exists. Proof that Harry Potter really exists.

    Higher critics? Do they sit in high chairs?

    The book of Daniel was written when? 200BC ? 400 BC ? 600 BC ?

    Who knows? We know Daniel was a king of some hill tribes. Big deal.

    The difference with evolution is that we have hard, testable evidence. You can jabber all you want and point at your book of mistakes but evolution is still true and creation is still for the dogs.<<


    Reply,


    >>Cult of evolution? It's people who accept hard scientific evidence. Those who don't are deniers of reality. <<


    Job 26:7

    "He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing..."


    Isa 40:22

    "There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth..."


    As you know no Hebrew or Greek, it may have escaped your notice, that many thousands of years before man actually knew the earth was spherical, the bible let man know in advance that it was, by using the Hebrew term 'chug' having the meaning of a 'circle', specifically spherical in shape, not round and flat as in a plate and that, whereas the ancient Hindoos believed that the earth was held up by an elephant, that stood on the back of a turtle, and that it swam in a cosmic sea and the Greek held to the belief that it was Atlas that held up the world, the bible clearly tells man that Jehovah is "Hanging the earth upon nothing" and you wanted hard facts, well here they are professor; just acouple of them, just for your vanity...!


    The bible is not a text book on science, but whatever scientific facts it does touch on, proved science is in agreement with it, unless of course you do not believe that the earth is spherical and hangs on nothing, empty space, as it were!

    I have been watching you for a long time and know how you opperate, therefore, I will keep myself to proved scientific matters and not hearsay and legend or scientific assumptions or theories...!

    So, I will ask you a very simple question professor!

    on the two points that i have raised about the earth and what the bible says on them, are they correct and iwasthe bible right all along, even when your forefathers believed in a flat earth?





    >>The book of Daniel was written when? 200BC ? 400 BC ? 600 BC ?

    Who knows? We know Daniel was a king of some hill tribes. Big deal. <<

    Wrong, as you seem to be thoroughly brainwashed by your religion of evolution, as you seem to be one of its many high priests!

    Discussing archaeological evidence and opposing views with you, would seem to be a complete waste of time, as you come across as someone, with something missing...too self opinionated, too agressive...!


    Now for the flak!

    But first, tell me how and why the bible on the matter of the earth being spherical and hangs on emty space is wrong and provide your "hard facts"?


    I throw up 1,000,000 pennies. what are the odds of them all coming down 'heads' up?

    Those are the odds of your evolution being right!

    I blow up a printing factory. What are the odds of the full encyclopaedia Britannica comig down and landing on my table fully bound?

    The odds are better for the above than your "theory"!



    I look forward to your "hard facts"!



    letusreason

    Report message15

  • Message 136

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Hi, letusreason, you ask, ‘ tell me how and why the bible on the matter of the earth being spherical and hangs on empty space is wrong’.

    Well, the earth is spherical, but the Bible doesn‘t say so. If, as you say ’chug’ means ’round’ or ’circle;’ then that means a disc, not a sphere.

    The earth does not ‘hang ‘ , like , for instance a ball suspended from a ceiling by a piece of string.

    So yes, the Bible authors were wrong.

    Report message16

  • Message 137

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by NicholasMarks (U8070584) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    The odds are better for the above than your "theory"! 

    A wonderful piece of work..but you should have included, Isaiah 40:26 whereby God declares that all the stars are made from his 'dynamic energy' and therefore all the laws that control them are too.

    There is much that can be gleaned from this because it shows that our genetics are carved from this single source and that he that has ownership of them has ownership of all the Universe...perhaps even, in our scientific infancy, send his only begotten son to tell us the mechanics by which we can prosper in health and in communial living. Pity that some will be excluded...especially as everlasting life is at stake.

    Report message17

  • Message 138

    , in reply to message 136.

    Posted by Gamerwd (U11664650) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    I throw up 1,000,000 pennies. what are the odds of them all coming down 'heads' up?
    ------------------------------

    Assuming 50% are heads each time, and you keep those that are heads, only tossing the remaining tails - 20 or 21 sets of tosses - not that many.

    Typical lack of understanding of evolution and probability.

    Report message18

  • Message 139

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by letusreason

    I throw up 1,000,000 pennies. what are the odds of them all coming down 'heads' up?

    Those are the odds of your evolution being right!

    I blow up a printing factory. What are the odds of the full encyclopaedia Britannica comig down and landing on my table fully bound?

    The odds are better for the above than your "theory"!


     


    Evolution is a fact, there is a theory about why it happens - the fact that you don't seem to understand that means that any comment you make is specious

    Report message19

  • Message 140

    , in reply to message 136.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>Hi, letusreason, you ask, ‘ tell me how and why the bible on the matter of the earth being spherical and hangs on empty space is wrong’.

    Well, the earth is spherical, but the Bible doesn‘t say so. If, as you say ’chug’ means ’round’ or ’circle;’ then that means a disc, not a sphere.

    The earth does not ‘hang ‘ , like , for instance a ball suspended from a ceiling by a piece of string.

    So yes, the Bible authors were wrong. <<


    Reply,



    You have missed the point altogether! To an observer in space the sun, moon and the planets are round [a shdow cast gives us a clue] but we know that they are not round and flat like a plate and the bible does tell us that Jehovah hangs the earth on nothing!

    It would seem that you people are not familiar with Hebrew idiom and poetry, as this medium is often used in the bible to describe scientific facts, that are now taken for granted!


    Isaiah 40:22 reads:

    “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.” When this text says that God sits above the circle of the earth, this harmonizes with the fact that the earth is circular, viewed from all directions, but that also makes it globular in form.

    The Hebrew word hhug here is defined in A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures by B. Davidson as “circle, sphere.”

    This same Hebrew word for circle is found in Job 22:14, where the New World Translation says of God:

    “On the vault of heaven he walks about.”

    Now, we know that the vault of heaven as seen from the earth is hemispherical, or like a half globe.

    The other half of the hemispherical vault of heaven extends below the earth upon which we stand and hence cannot be seen directly by us. In harmony with this fact, when Isaiah 40:22 says that God sits above the circle of the earth, then the word “circle” here is in the same Hebrew sense as that found in Job 22:14.

    Thus it follows that the word “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 must mean something that is rotund, just as the appearance of the sky viewed from the earth is rotund and like a vault.


    So when you come back and say,
    Well, the earth is spherical, but the Bible doesn‘t say so. If, as you say ’chug’ means ’round’ or ’circle;’ then that means a disc, not a sphere.<<


    You are clearly wrong, but will not admit it of course and if my Hebrew understanding and its semantics are wrong, please point out where with examples...?

    Interestingly, regarding “circle” in this verse, the Scoffeld Reference Bible says in a marginal note:

    “A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth.”

    Moffatt’s translation reads:

    “He sits over the round earth,”


    The Catholic Douay Version says here:

    “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth.”

    Of course, the inspired Word of earth’s Creator would properly indicate that the earth was round, though the ancients in general thought it was flat.


    Perhaps, you may wish to stick to what you know best and are comfortable with, because the above subject isn't one of them...!


    In conclusion,

    >>Well, the earth is spherical, but the Bible doesn‘t say so. If, as you say ’chug’ means ’round’ or ’circle;’ then that means a disc, not a sphere<<


    >>Well, the earth is spherical, but the Bible doesn‘t say so...<<

    If that is truly the case, then your master of Hebrew is greater than the authorities quoted and you are to be congratulated for twaching us all!

    Or, would you like to revise your reply?


    >>So yes, the Bible authors were wrong<<

    Were they or is it you who is wrong, but will not admit it?



    Kind regards,


    letusreason

    Report message20

  • Message 141

    , in reply to message 140.

    Posted by newdwr54 (U12275314) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason
    Thus it follows that the word “circle” in Isaiah 40:22 must mean something that is rotund, just as the appearance of the sky viewed from the earth is rotund and like a vault. 
    What a lot of nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you literalists are prepared to go in order to delude yourselves.

    If the author of Isaiah wanted to use the word for a sphere he already had a perfectly good one available. It is even used in the same book:

    Isaiah 22:18
    "He will roll you up tightly like a BALL and throw you into a large country. There you will die and there your splendid chariots will remain— you disgrace to your master's house!" [My emphasis]

    But he didn't, he used the word for disc, because he thought the Earth was a flat disc, just the way the Moon appeared to be a flat disc.

    That is Bronze Age cosmology, not modern science that religious lunatics fought for years to supress when we finally did realise the planets were spherical.

    Report message21

  • Message 142

    , in reply to message 140.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason. The word used in the bible to describe the Earth is for a FLAT circle and not as in a ball (Isaiah 22:18).

    More recent rewritings of the bible by apologists (like you are) who see that the original is obviously wrong does not change the fact that the original is obviously wrong and that they have rewritten the bible because of it.


    upon the circle

    chuwg (khoog)

    a circle -- circle, circuit, compass. 



    biblelexicon.org/isa...


    Note the word "sphere" occurs at no time in the definition of chuwg. Circle is in the parallel texts shown. Now will you admit to being an apologist who is wrong?

    Report message22

  • Message 143

    , in reply to message 137.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Message posted by NicholasMarks

    A wonderful piece of work..but you should have included, Isaiah 40:26 whereby God declares that all the stars are made from his 'dynamic energy' and therefore all the laws that control them are too. 



    Another lie:


    Isaiah 40:26 Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that bringeth out their host by number: he calleth them all by names by the greatness of his might, for that he is strong in power; not one faileth.


    As lots of stars have "failed" can we assume that god is running short of dynamic energy?

    Report message23

  • Message 144

    , in reply to message 134.

    Posted by sciolist (U7547242) on Friday, 19th March 2010


    You asked me for names of ‘higher critics’
     

    Really I wanted to know who it was who didn't believe in Pilate's existence until his name turned up on a bit of stone.

    Pilate is well enough documented, but even if he weren't, critical principles would argue that you couldn't make him up. It would be a dead giveaway.

    At the least, to think Pilate was a fiction you would have to think the NT was written very late.


    just as modern higher critics would seem to prove previous higher critics wrong, the future higher critics will do the same for the present higher critics
     

    Earlier generations were influential in their ideas and methods. But when it comes to specifics about this book or that person, early work is obsolete and superseded, and only current work counts.

    All research is cumulative and progressive (even the junk put out by "creation research"). You can't rely for specifics on early work that has been superseded. Nor can you reject current work on the grounds that previous work has been superseded. Have you never revised your own ideas about anything?

    Report message24

  • Message 145

    , in reply to message 137.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Hello NicholasMarks,


    >>...you should have included, Isaiah 40:26 whereby God declares that all the stars are made from his 'dynamic energy' and therefore all the laws that control them are too.<<


    I agree Nicholas, Isa 40:26 is a masterpiece in its self...there are several other texts that can be used to show that even though the bible is not a scientific text book, but when it does touch on the matter of science, modern true provable science backs up the bible!


    Examples


    Humans have long noted that the rivers flow into the seas and oceans and yet these do not increase in depth. Some believed, until it was learned that the earth is spherical, that this was because an equal amount of water was spilling off the ends of the earth. Later it was learned that the sun “pumps” up thousands of millions of gallons of water from the seas every second in the form of water vapor. This produces clouds that are moved by the wind over land areas where the moisture falls as rain and snow. Water then runs into the rivers and flows again into the seas. This marvelous cycle, although generally unknown in ancient times, is spoken about in the Bible:

    TEV [GNB] Eccl 1:7

    “Every river flows into the sea, but the sea is not yet full. The water returns to where the rivers began, and starts all over again.”


    Regarding the origin of the universe


    The Bible states:

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1) But many scientists had considered this unscientific, asserting that the universe had no beginning. However, pointing to newer information, astronomer Robert Jastrow explains:

    “The essence of the strange developments is that the Universe had, in some sense, a beginning—that it began at a certain moment in time.”

    Jastrow here refers to the now commonly accepted big bang theory, He adds:

    “Now we see how the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same.”


    What has been the reaction to such discoveries?

    “Astronomers are curiously upset,”

    Jastrow writes.

    “Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession.

    It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.

    We become irritated, we pretend the conflict does not exist, or we paper it over with meaningless phrases.

    But the fact remains that while “evidence uncovered by science” disagreed with what scientists long believed regarding the origin of the universe, it confirmed what was written in the Bible millenniums ago.


    Evolutionists and aetheists are just the same, because as science continues to progress, it makes it more convincing that their is a "mind" behind it all...!


    If I am struggling through a barren wasteland, dry, hot, windy and I'm hungry, thirsty and lost and I suddenly come across a beautiful house, well maintained, larders full od every food the deligts and is good for one and the water is cool and refreshing, do I come to the same conclusion as the aetheist and evolutionists do, and say, "it came about by chance" and do I conclude that the house wired itself, installed its own satellite dish and aligned it and so on?

    What are the chances of the above coming about by chance, what are the odds?


    Evolutionists are like some astronomers, they are uncomfortable with certain scientific discoveries!


    Jastrow writes.

    “Their reactions provide an interesting demonstration of the response of the scientific mind—supposedly a very objective mind—when evidence uncovered by science itself leads to a conflict with the articles of faith in our profession.

    It turns out that the scientist behaves the way the rest of us do when our beliefs are in conflict with the evidence.

    We become irritated, we pretend..."

    Just like the evolutonists etc...!

    Kind regards,


    letusreason

    Report message25

  • Message 146

    , in reply to message 145.

    Posted by Gamerwd (U11664650) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    As already shown, you've not a clue on how evolution works or probabilty.

    Report message26

  • Message 147

    , in reply to message 143.

    Posted by Trojan (U14281102) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    quite a discussi folks,so lets put some facts down,the bible is made up of 66 books written over 1500 yrs.by many writers the N T has 27 books.written by many writers over a period of 100 yrs. the events which took place around the time of jesus.were later recorded 10, 20,30, upto 100 yrs after the events.the books of the bible hav been tanslated from hebrew to greek by hand.there has been centuaris of copying by hand into i600 languages, dialects,and numerous revisions.despite all the mistakes which are obvious.+the control, before jesus, does not prove that there is not a god.

    Report message27

  • Message 148

    , in reply to message 135.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason. When are you going to start?

    I have already explained why you are wrong yet again on Isaiah 40:22. Now why you are wrong yet again on Job 26:7.


    over the empty place

    tohuw (to'-hoo)

    a desolation (of surface), i.e. desert; figuratively, a worthless thing; adverbially, in vain -- confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

    and hangeth

    talah (taw-law')

    to suspend (especially to gibbet) -- hang (up).

    the earth

    'erets (eh'-rets)

    the earth (at large, or partitively a land) -- common, country, earth, field, ground, land, natins, way, + wilderness, world.


    biblelexicon.org/job...


    Now why would someone stretch out the north? This is meaningless other than to say it is desolation there. To hang is literally to hang something, to suspend it, not to let it "float" unsupported. To say that the north is over nothing while presumably the east, south and west are over something is strange to say the least.

    The verse has to be read in context. Job in his babblings talks of hell being naked before him and destruction having no covering. Also of the pillars of heaven, as Earth itself was believed to rest on pillars.

    The nothing here is not space but the air above us.

    The fact that Earth was a sphere was known thousands of years ago. Go to Las Americas, south Tenerife and look at the nearby island of La Gomera and go uphill from there and you can see the curvature of the Earth in that you see more of La Gomera that you could not see from sea level. It has always been the same for sailors, sailing into a distant port.


    Wrong, as you seem to be thoroughly brainwashed by your religion of evolution, as you seem to be one of its many high priests!

    Discussing archaeological evidence and opposing views with you, would seem to be a complete waste of time, as you come across as someone, with something missing...too self opinionated, too agressive...! 



    I gave you proof that Daniel was written maybe around 150 BC and instead of admitting you were wrong, you start ranting like a madman and insulting me. I think you need to see someone about anger management since you obviously hate being proved wrong, yet again.

    As you know as much about evolution as you know about the bible (ie: zero) what you have to say on the matter is worthless. Evolution is a fact. You can whine, throw toys out of your pram, insult me but it still remains a fact. This site proves it:


    www.talkorigins.org/...


    Shouting lalalalala does not help matters.


    Report message28

  • Message 149

    , in reply to message 141.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>What a lot of nonsense. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths you literalists are prepared to go in order to delude yourselves.<<


    Reply,


    It never ceases to amase me that you know nothing of how Hebrew idiom works and it seems that you are showing a 'literalist' attitude, because certain factors escape your notice and one of them is seen below, which individuals like you never even entertain, or even bother to think about...!


    Bible writers often speak from the standpoint of the observer on the earth, or from his particular position geographically, as we often naturally do today.

    For example, the Bible mentions,

    “the sunrising.” (Nu 2:3; 34:15)

    Some have seized upon this as an opportunity to discredit the Bible as scientifically inaccurate, claiming that the Hebrews viewed earth as the center of things, with the sun revolving around it.

    But the Bible writers nowhere expressed such a belief.

    These same critics overlook the fact that they themselves use the identical expression and that it is in all of their almanacs.

    It is common to hear someone say,

    ‘it is sunrise,’ or ‘the sun has set,’ or ‘the sun traveled across the sky.’

    The Bible also speaks of “the extremity of the earth” (Ps 46:9), “the ends of the earth” (Ps 22:27), “the four extremities of the earth” (Isa 11:12), “the four corners of the earth,” and “the four winds of the earth” (Re 7:1).


    Expressions

    These expressions cannot be taken to prove that the Hebrews understood the earth to be square.

    The number four is often used to denote that which is fully rounded out, as it were, just as we have four directions and sometimes employ the expressions “to the ends of the earth,” “to the four corners of the earth,” in the sense of embracing all the earth.—Compare Eze 1:15-17; Lu 13:29.

    The same for "chug" it can literally mean 'circle', but one does not hang a flat round plate on nothing i.e. empty space, consider,

    The Bible’s Harmony With Scientific Facts.

    The Bible, at Job 26:7, speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing.”

    Science says that the earth remains in its orbit in space primarily because of the interaction of gravity and centrifugal force.

    These forces, of course, are invisible. Therefore the earth, like other heavenly bodies, is suspended in space as if hanging on nothing.

    Speaking from Jehovah’s viewpoint, the prophet Isaiah wrote under inspiration:

    “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isa 40:22)

    The Bible says:

    “He [God] has described a circle upon the face of the waters.” (Job 26:10)

    The waters are limited by his decree to their proper place. They do not come up and inundate the land; neither do they fly off into space. (Job 38:8-11)

    From the viewpoint of Jehovah, the earth’s face, or the surface of the waters, would, of course, have a circular form, just as the edge of the moon presents a circular appearance to us. Before land surfaces appeared, the surface of the entire globe was one circular (spherical) mass of surging waters.—Ge 1:2.

    What you miss is the Hebrew context.

    A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth. See, also, Isa 42:5 44:24 51:13 Job 9:8 Ps 104:2 Jer 10:12.

    Take Isa 51:13

    "And that you should forget Jehovah your Maker, the One stretching out the heavens"

    The Hebrew translaiterated term "novteh" and have several meanings, context permiting,

    "to stretch out, spread out, extend, incline, bend."

    ...and a cross reference text to Isa 51:13, to help us better understand where the prophet is coming from is Isa 40:22 "circle" and even the scholars previously mentioned and encyclpaedias recocgnise that what is meant is "sphericity", but you seem to know more and better than all the experts put together, because you take things at face value and not knowing Hebrew or Greek [LXX] you have no alternative, but to act in such a way, because you do not want the bible to be correct...because people like you have their own agaendas... they do not wish any higher power to direct their moral compass...!

    Such is the life of the aetheist and evolutionist...!


    Anything to denegrate the bible!


    Kind regards,


    letusreason


    Report message29

  • Message 150

    , in reply to message 142.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>letusreason. The word used in the bible to describe the Earth is for a FLAT circle and not as in a ball (Isaiah 22:18).

    More recent rewritings of the bible by apologists (like you are) who see that the original is obviously wrong does not change the fact that the original is obviously wrong and that they have rewritten the bible because of it.<<



    As I pointed out earlier the Hebrew term 'chug' has to be seen in the light of context and associated cross reference hebrew texts and not just taken at face value! See reply to newdwr54

    If we take things at face value, then do we literally believe that from an earthly observer's point of view or geographical location, that the sun literally rises and sets over the earth, that it means that the sun revolves round the earth? Think about where I am coming from SQM!

    Things are only "apparent" to an earthly observer and not "actual"


    Kind regards,


    letusreason

    Report message30

  • Message 151

    , in reply to message 148.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>Now why would someone stretch out the north? This is meaningless other than to say it is desolation there<<


    >>why would someone stretch out the north? This is meaningless <<


    Only meaningless to you, not me!

    Look up the Hebrew for the English expression "stretch out" and you may find your clue and when you have found Hebrew scriptures that contain the above ["stretch out"] then see Isa 40:22 in the light of the understanding behind the Hebrew "stretch out" and then stand back and see if you can see the overall context of what the prophet is saying in Isa 40:22!

    Kind regards,

    letusreason

    Report message31

  • Message 152

    , in reply to message 145.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason. Whether you call yourself LUR or glorybe21, your posts contain no reason, you tell deliberate lies about science and anything else in your support of creationism aka ID.

    Water evaporation is hardly rocket science and saying that some goat herder knew about it 2000 years ago when writing in the bible so it is heavenly knowledge is like claiming that he knew how to put his robe on is heavenly knowledge.

    As creationists love lying about what people say, let's see what Robert Jastrow really said (from the wiki):


    His expressed views on Creation were that although he was an "agnostic, and not a believer", it seems to him that "the curtain drawn over the mystery of creation will never be raised by human efforts, at least in the foreseeable future" due to "the circumstances of the big bang-the fiery holocaust that destroyed the record of the past". 

    Then again, being born in 1925, he was not exactly working in science after the year 2000.

    The usual shameful lie about atheists, scientists, evolutionists, seeing ID aka creationism as true. Have you no standards to make up such blatant lies, even claiming that evidence now supports creationism?

    No need to write such long posts in future. Just cut out all the dishonesty and you can keep your posts down to a few lines.




    Report message32

  • Message 153

    , in reply to message 151.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason21. Stretch out as in the land stretches out before us or even:


    He stretcheth out

    natah (naw-taw')

    to stretch or spread out; by implication, to bend away (including moral deflection); used in a great variety of application (out), stretch (forth, out), take (aside), turn (aside, away), wrest, cause to yield.


    the north

    tsaphown (tsaw-fone')

    hidden, i.e. dark; used only of the north as a quarter (gloomy and unknown) -- north(-ern, side, -ward, wind).


    You understand it as you read what you want into it. I have to examine it for what it is, the rantings of someone (Job) who is very upset with his life and is railing against everything but god.

    Report message33

  • Message 154

    , in reply to message 150.

    Posted by Heselbine (U1612177) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Things are only "apparent" to an earthly observer and not "actual" 

    Yes - except that you were talking about SCIENTIFIC predictions. SCIENTIFIC predictions require accuracy.

    If you want to demonstrate that the Bible makes scientific predictions, you should make some attempt to find out what a scientific prediction looks like.

    Report message34

  • Message 155

    , in reply to message 153.

    Posted by BashfulAnthony (U10740638) on Friday, 19th March 2010


    SBQ/

    . I have to examine it for what it is, the rantings of someone (Job) who is very upset with his life and is railing against everything but god. 

    As I have pointed out before, you have entirely misunderstood, and misrepresented, (purposely or otherwise ) the story of Job, which is clearly not a literal one anyway.

    Report message35

  • Message 156

    , in reply to message 155.

    Posted by Sir Bernard Quatermass (U1732830) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    BashfulAnthony. In 200 words or less, why do you not tell me about the book of Job then?

    Report message36

  • Message 157

    , in reply to message 149.

    Posted by newdwr54 (U12275314) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason
    What you miss is the Hebrew context. 
    Hogwash.

    If I want to say "sphere" I'll say "sphere", or "ball", etc. I have words I can use to explain exactly what I mean.

    So did the writer/s of Isaiah. They had a word for "ball" which they used when they wanted to describe a spherical object.

    They also had a word for "disc", which they used when they wanted to describe a flat circle.

    When describing Earth they used the term for "disc". In common with every other Bronze Age cosmology they mistook the flat Earth they saw around them as a circular disc, complete with edges mind you, and they described it as such.

    They confirmed their suspicions by looking at the Moon, which appeared to travel around Earth while keeping its face directly upon the Earth. It also looked like a circular disc. They could see the shadow of the disc of the Earth cover the Moon, and so concluded that Earth, like the Moon, was a also disc.

    They knew no better. It really is that simple. No amount of linguistic tomfoolery can hide that fact from any reasonable observer. Your desperate attempt to twist logic just so you can *make it fit* is a fools errand.

    Report message37

  • Message 158

    , in reply to message 157.

    Posted by Spud (U14068611) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Hi newdwr54

    That is interesting. smiley - ok

    Report message38

  • Message 159

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by John Moodie (U14353581) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    You claim Jesus never existed because J was not invented until the 14th century.
    Are you saying anyone with the name John or James didn't exist until the 14th century? What a stupid argument!

    Report message39

  • Message 160

    , in reply to message 140.

    Posted by smittims (U1158597) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Hi, letusreasion, you say

    'your master of Hebrew is greater than the authorities quoted and you are to be congratulated for teaching us all!'

    ... thanks; I'm content to leave it at that, but I should point out that the translations which have 'round' and not 'spherical' were translated by expert Hebrew scholars .

    Report message40

  • Message 161

    , in reply to message 142.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Just one thing I forgot to mention and that was, is there any reason why you omitted the term "vault", which has already been previously explained!

    strongsnumbers.com/h...


    You see, I too can use the above, but try "Strong's" as well, as it is part of the clue to understanding the context...!

    Report message41

  • Message 162

    , in reply to message 161.

    Posted by newdwr54 (U12275314) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    letusreason,

    If you take a child with no astronomical education onto a small hill on a desert plain and ask him or her to describe their surroundings, they will tell you that they are on a flat disc covered by a dome.

    That's exactly what the tribesmen men who invented the Bible's creation stories thought too.

    As they say in America, "Go figure?"

    Report message42

  • Message 163

    , in reply to message 144.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>Pilate is well enough documented, but even if he weren't, critical principles would argue that you couldn't make him up. It would be a dead giveaway.<<


    Well, it is easy to say that now, of course it is, but they had a different opinion back then, then they had to quickly change their opinion, as they did with proof of Belshazzar came along and over the decades, these are the higher critics that contribute to the like of the encyclopaedias Britannica and Amaericana...!

    As these men fool themselves and then have to sing a different song later on, so people like you are influenced by them [please don't tell me you're not], but unlike them, arrogance and pride prevent you from following suit...!


    I promised someone on here, that I would look into the date c. 200 BCE for the book of Daniel and why I differer from his view, a view that many entertain on here. I will create a new post on the Chritain board, because there are those on there like many of you, that believe Daniel was written in the time of the Maccabees 2nd century BCE, looking at internal and extarnal evidence...!


    letusreason

    Report message43

  • Message 164

    , in reply to message 162.

    Posted by NicholasMarks (U8070584) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    As they say in America, "Go figure?" 

    Hindsight is a wonderful thing....Almighty God should have realised 4000 years ago that a people would become so advanced that they needed a very detailed explanation of the beginnings of time. Perhaps Jesus, after his resurrection, should have hung about in the flesh, retelling his account of events so that everyone could believe him...perhaps, even, Almighty God should have popped back every couple of years and broke all his codes about us walking to the end of days with the evil, and the good, living side by side, learning the knowledge of good and evil, or maybe, he should have presented himself to sinners when he expressly doesn't want, even to know them, unless they repent in a meaningful way.

    Maybe, he chose to ignore all objections and stick to his word. Jesus Christ is our only salvation and woven into his teaching is a wonderful knowledge which even today is too advanced for the best scientists of the Earth, who are slowly digging away and coming to realise that the energy behind the Universe is far more complicated than they could have ever imagined and like all knowledge requires special laws to harness it. And those wonderful laws are 'righteousness'...God's code of conduct, which we have known about for 2000 years, and which all mankind will have to adopt to benefit from the wonderful fruits of the Earth. As long as they don't leave it too late.

    Report message44

  • Message 165

    , in reply to message 146.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    >>As already shown, you've not a clue on how evolution works or probabilty. <<



    Was I talking about evolution, even though it contradicts what science is beginning to reveal in even greater detail, how complex single celled orginisms are? Darwin hadn't a clue about what we have discovered in these modern time and he even admitted that if something came along that proved his theory wrong, it would collapse over night and it has!

    Report message45

  • Message 166

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by Gamerwd (U11664650) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    I throw up 1,000,000 pennies. what are the odds of them all coming down 'heads' up?

    Those are the odds of your evolution being right!
    -------------------------------------
    Doh - yes you were

    Report message46

  • Message 167

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by NearlySane (U3123538) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    You are replying to:

    Message posted by letusreason




    Was I talking about evolution, even though it contradicts what science is beginning to reveal in even greater detail, how complex single celled orginisms are? Darwin hadn't a clue about what we have discovered in these modern time and he even admitted that if something came along that proved his theory wrong, it would collapse over night and it has!
     


    As I've pointed out evolution is a fact, natural selection is a theory that explains why it happens..

    Your ignorance is astounding

    Report message47

  • Message 168

    , in reply to message 165.

    Posted by Heselbine (U1612177) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    ...it would collapse over night and it has! 

    You know, you shouldn't lie. It makes baby Jesus cry.

    Report message48

  • Message 169

    , in reply to message 155.

    Posted by letusreason (U5152521) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    Hello BashfulAnthony,


    Unfortunately, these kind of people cannot be convinced!

    We cannot see, feel, taste or touch gravity, but we know it exists because it manifests itself in some way... and it has a powerful pull, exertion and influence on us...!

    The spirit entity Satan, we cannot see, feel, taste or touch, but we know that it exists, because it too, like gravity manifests itself in some way... and it has a powerful pull, exertion and influence on us...!

    Aetheists and evolutionists are convinced that such an entity doesn't exist and exerts no such pull etc and so resort to riddicule etc!

    As we know, this entity wants individuals to believe such and makes sure and goes out of its way to convince them of such and as a result of his machinations, they are under his control, but it allows them to think that they are not, it pulls the strings whenever it wants to and it is as John the apostle writes:

    " 18 We know that every [person] that has been born from God does not practice sin, but the One born from God watches him, and the wicked one does not fasten his hold on him. 19 We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the [power of the] wicked one. 20 But we know that the Son of God has come, and he has given us intellectual capacity that we may gain the knowledge of the true one. And we are in union with the true one, by means of his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and life everlasting. 21 Little children, guard yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:18-21 NWT


    And what an [abstract] idol evolution is with its faithful adherents and high priests, who serve them.

    letusreason

    Report message49

  • Message 170

    , in reply to message 169.

    Posted by horsethorn (U1620054) on Friday, 19th March 2010

    LUR We cannot ... *_feel_* ...gravity  [my emphasis]

    Are you sure about that?

    Do you find it difficult to type, what with you & your keyboard floating around like that?

    smiley - doh

    Science knowledge fail

    ht

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2014 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.