You don't really get wings. You just get a hole in the ground and a nice box to rot in. I'm going to be cremated. I don't like the idea of rotting in the ground. Not that I'll care when I'm dead. I don't want to take up any room where there could be a nice golf course, or something.

Originally posted by abigail
I don't have to prove anything.......God has already. If you ask an aethist if they believe in God....they say no and often that is that. The question was asked on this thread what would it take for me to believe in evolution. Well...I answered it. I don't believe we came from monkey's and I suspect you don't believe we came from God. You have your right to your opinion and so do I.......its called freedome of speech. Great concept huh!! Smile......its the internet.

I am very glad you have your own opinion and without it the world would be a boring place.

The thing is an athiest will most likely keep an open mind about god. I am sure they would just "leave it at that" like you did. I'm sure it would be much easier to convince an athiest that creation occured rather than convince you, for example, that evolution happened

An atheist does not have an open mind about god at all. They are quite convinced there is no god. An agnostic, however, while skeptical, will consider the possibility, but only when undeniable proof is presented. I think I see what you're saying though. Both of these "non-believers" are very logical, rational people. Either would accept real, factual proof of god, if there ever was. Neither would be convinced on blind faith alone. It would take a huge booming voice and a hand coming out of the sky to be proof enough for me. Until then, I'm immune to god. In fact, he can kiss my white arse.

And yet creationists say they are open minded. I dont see how a view like this is open minded.

I am an evolutionist, but i would never say anything like this

The whole theory of evolution is a bogus idea put in the heads of arrogant people by the devil. It is just a tool to take our focus off GOD,,,,,, and the person who says you have no problem with evolution as long as GOD is the author,,,,,,, come on dude! quit straddling the fence. Pick a definite side in the debate. To insinuate that GOD took millions of years to create his creation takes away from his majesty.

I have fossil shark teeth that were found around Corinth Mississippi,,,, scientinst swear that they are at least 75 million years old. Thats when the ocean was up this far. If you read your BIBLE it says there was a great flood over the earth. That was only about 5 or 6000 years ago.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
This question goes out to all creationists.

What is it going to take for you to beleive evolution?

I haven't been around for about a week or two, and don't really have time to read through this thread, so I'll just reply

What will it take to get me to believe in evolution? Well, as I have said in the past, I'm still on the fence on the whole creationism/evolution thing, though usually come out on the side of creationism since many of the arguements supporting it can be factually weak and people's responses to those don't educate me at all more on the issue. Whew, anyway.

What it will take:

An evolutionary model against which the scientific method can be applied

A better explanation than "It just happened" for biogenesis(First cell/RNA/Amino Acid).

An extreme amount of transitory species fossils, far outstripping the number of those "final" species we have on record. (If you want an explanation why, just ask)

If that last point can't happen, an explanation, then, of why there wouldn't be transitory species with some solid evidence/lab experiments which demonstrate transition from one species to the next.

Some animal since recorded history in which a species didn't exist and began to exist, such as a 3 legged bird (which can reproduce), 2 headed lion, or something completely different. Which can reproduce, so you can't throw mules at me, you ass (pun intended)

An explanation for Australia. People who debate evolution will know, probably, at least 20 of the 478,343,643 unexplained things in the land down under. (A duck billed WHAT?!)

As I've said before, believing in evolution doesn't challenge my religious beliefs; evolution works just fine in God's Word. It is the theory of evolution its self I have a problem with. Given this information, or even a few of them answered and I'd be on board the evolutionary boat.

Happy "Yay! I wasn't aborted!" day, everyone! (Jan 22 was the 32nd anniversary of Roe v Wade)

[edit on 1-24-2005 by junglejake]

A better explanation than "It just happened" for biogenesis(First cell/RNA/Amino Acid).

Irrelevant really, evolution has little to do with abiogenesis. Evolution is the change of species over time. Yes, atheists tend to find abiogenesis to be truth, but evolution isn't dependent on that theory.

Originally posted by junglejake
An extreme amount of transitory species fossils, far outstripping the number of those "final" species we have on record. (If you want an explanation why, just ask)

What makes creationists so sure that these fossils have to exist if evolution is true? Yes, we have many transitory fossils, but it isn't enough for creationists, which I don't understand, what we have should be enough. The fact is, not everything that dies becomes a fossil. Most organisms break down and leave pretty much nothing behind.

If that last point can't happen, an explanation, then, of why there wouldn't be transitory species with some solid evidence/lab experiments which demonstrate transition from one species to the next.

There were and are transitory species. The thing is, no species is "final," they are still evolving. It doesn't hit a stopping point. Technically, all species are transitory.

Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something

There will be enough proof for me when someone can explain how something was formed from nothing. I do not see how that could ever be explained. I suggest everyone to try this. Go into a small room with a mirror. Make sure it is very quiet. Looking directly into the mirror and say the following: I am [insert your full name]. Say that a few times and really think about it as you are doing it. It gives me this unexplainable feeling when I do it. It puts things in perspective. Me, I think there is a possibility that everything around me is a dream or virtual world of sort. The posters, this forum, everything. This is just an experiment that was programmed for me not to able to concieve the thought of a "God" or an "Afterlife".

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Stonecold]

Originally posted by Stonecold
There will be enough proof for me when someone can explain how something was formed from nothing. I do not see how that could ever be explained. I suggest everyone to try this. Go into a small room with a mirror. Make sure it is very quiet. Looking directly into the mirror and say the following: I am [insert your full name]. Say that a few times and really think about it as you are doing it. It gives me this unexplainable feeling when I do it. It puts things in perspective. Me, I think there is a possibility that everything around me is a dream or virtual world of sort. The posters, this forum, everything. This is just an experiment that was programmed for me not to able to concieve the thought of a "God" or an "Afterlife".

That would be enough proof for lot of people, but there will still be someone else who discrets that and cries "conspiracies." So there is no end to prove that God doesn't or does exist. With our current level of understanding all we can do is make educated guesses and argue about it till...the end i guess.

Surf

Originally posted by Ikku

What makes creationists so sure that these fossils have to exist if evolution is true? Yes, we have many transitory fossils, but it isn't enough for creationists, which I don't understand, what we have should be enough. The fact is, not everything that dies becomes a fossil. Most organisms break down and leave pretty much nothing behind.

Ok, I'm going to get messy. And by messy, I mean in depth, not dirty. You have a sick mind!

What makes creationists so sure these fossils exist? Molecular biologists, that's what!

Let's pretend, for a moment, that cats are in the process of evolving into dogs. Rediculous, it may seem, but remember, a T-Rex supposedly turned into a Sparrow over time.

Now, how does it start. Does the cat instantly become a dog? If that's the case, my arguement is shot 100%...But that has never happened in recorded history...So I doubt it to be the case.

No, the answer, according to evolutionists, would be that there are minute mutations in the cat that are leading it to be a dog. Since these mutations help it, they tend to get propogated throughout the species, and thereby a new species is created.

So they use microevloution to prove macroevolution. IF that's the case, though, why haven we not seen a brand new species evolve in our time here on earth? We've seen moths turn from grey to brown back to grey again, yet they never developed a new wing pattern to evade birds, they never evolved claws to dig into the tree and protect themselves, they never developed non-compound eyes (how the heck did those turn into our eyes?!) and they never developed cognative thought. The brown ones, for the most part, died out, then the grey ones did. That's micro evolution.

If you have macroevolution, you will have that stage repeated countless times. You'll get a cat with floppy ears. Then a cat with some other k-9 characteristic, etc. until you get a dog. Most of those creatures would fit in the transitory phase. One gets k-9 teeth, one gets floppy ears, etc. As a result, you would expect far, far, far more transitory species than the "final sum" of species. Yet, we dig the same fossil throughout the world. The last time I checked, we had 3 Triceretops fossils, and all 3 were identical. Does that sound like evolution is taking place? Doesn't to me, either.

So where are these transitory species? How is it we can have duplicate fossils? There's more to this world than meets the eye. Until science recognises that, it will have a huge problem proving it's points...

Originally posted by junglejake
Let's pretend, for a moment, that cats are in the process of evolving into dogs. Rediculous, it may seem, but remember, a T-Rex supposedly turned into a Sparrow over time.

Now, how does it start. Does the cat instantly become a dog? If that's the case, my arguement is shot 100%...But that has never happened in recorded history...So I doubt it to be the case.

No, the answer, according to evolutionists, would be that there are minute mutations in the cat that are leading it to be a dog. Since these mutations help it, they tend to get propogated throughout the species, and thereby a new species is created.

This is where your thinking is all wrong. This is why people have problems with evolution. Nobody has ever implied that a cat can become a dog, or a dinosaur can become a sparrow.
The theory is that cats and dogs could have evolved from the same origin, whether that be on a chemical level, or whatever. Let's say some four legged animal formed 50 million years ago. Well, something happened to a small group of them...maybe the weather got bad, or maybe they mated with another similar species, or both, and by some freak chance just happened to reproduce. They still had a common ancestor, but neither was ever the other. In fact, at the time when their ancenstors may have actually been of the same species, they probably were neither of the species they are now. That's how long it takes. So, while both cats and dogs might have originated from a single cell organism, neither was ever changed from one to the other. There are so many places along the tree where it could have split off to form another branch. Finding that branch may be very difficult. It's like looking for a needle in 200 million haystacks.

So (and this is purely speculative BS for the sake of example); you have an amoeba at the very bottom of the tree. That amoeba changes ever so slightly over say a million years. The original amoeba still exists, but now so does this new, slightly different amoeba. Eventually, this new string becomes something else, maybe 2 million years later. Now you have some other species, which is still related to the amoeba. Eventually, it somehow evolves into some type of animal....we'll jump ahead 50 million years and say it's a cat. Meanwhile, that first amoeba has been doing some other changes. Jump ahead 50 million and maybe that one turns out to be the dog. Are they related? Yes. Was one ever the other? No, definitely not. Can we find the tiny but significant change that happened 50 million years ago that might have set the pattern in motion? Probably not.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by Mr_Mojo_Rising]

Forgot about that last post on this thread I made, and I already wrote another one up that I'm about to paste in here. I'm not saying cats evolved into dogs, I was using that as an example, and I'm about to use it again. An evolutionary scientist gone preacher used the cat and dog example for me, and he dumbed it down to the point where I could understand it and it made a lot of sense. This'll learn me to not keep a window of ATS open to a thread that I mean to get back to, reply to that thread in another window, forget about it, then go and reply to a comment I already replied to...Doh...Anyway, here it is. I think I also explained what I ment with the whole cat & dog analogy in this response than I did in that previous one.

Why are the transitory fossils discovered to date not enough? Well, I’ll tell you. Let’s use an example of a cat evolving into a dog. This is going to be a pretty easy change, they’re both part of the same family. I’ll touch on the whole 3 chamber heart to a 4 chamber heart between species over time (so a partly formed 4 chamber heart, and this creature is the stronger of the species? With a non-functioning heart? Odd…) on another day.

CAT <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->DOG

We are starting with the cat. Now, evolution is supposed to take millions of years. As that cat changes over time, it will take on characteristics of dogs more and more until it becomes a dog. Granted, most animals that die don’t leave fossils. I find it truly remarkable that most of the animals that did leave fossils have been on the ends of this line, and not in the middle. Technically, if evolution were taking place as it’s described today, it would be extremely unlikely that any dinosaur fossil dug up will be of the same species as any other. Yet we have many fossils of the same species. You look out your window into a tree, you see a squirrel. They all look about the same. In the part of the country where I’m at, we have gray squirrels all over the place. None of them are of a different species, they’re all the same. Those are also the only kind of squirrels we have around here. Since they’re constantly evolving, wouldn’t there be so many different species of every animal all over the place? That’s why the supposed transitory fossils of today aren’t enough. They should be the majority of fossils discovered, not the exception.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and people do claim that a dinosaur became a sparrow.

[edit on 1-25-2005 by junglejake]

Originally posted by junglejake
Why are the transitory fossils discovered to date not enough? Well, I’ll tell you. Let’s use an example of a cat evolving into a dog. This is going to be a pretty easy change, they’re both part of the same family. I’ll touch on the whole 3 chamber heart to a 4 chamber heart between species over time (so a partly formed 4 chamber heart, and this creature is the stronger of the species? With a non-functioning heart? Odd…) on another day.

CAT <--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->DOG

We are starting with the cat. Now, evolution is supposed to take millions of years. As that cat changes over time, it will take on characteristics of dogs more and more until it becomes a dog.

First of all, your entire perspective on evolution is screwed when you use cat to dog example. That no more represents even a workable example than does say, Bill Cosby making Jello Pudding. Nobody who even comes close to understanding evolution would ever use a cat becoming a dog as an example, IMO.

Granted, most animals that die don’t leave fossils. I find it truly remarkable that most of the animals that did leave fossils have been on the ends of this line, and not in the middle.

This is also quite ridiculous, since we have no idea how long the line actually is, nor what may have happened during much of that time.

Technically, if evolution were taking place as it’s described today, it would be extremely unlikely that any dinosaur fossil dug up will be of the same species as any other.

Why is that? Again, you're assuming all the evolution must've occurred all at once.

Since they’re constantly evolving, wouldn’t there be so many different species of every animal all over the place? That’s why the supposed transitory fossils of today aren’t enough. They should be the majority of fossils discovered, not the exception.

It takes millions of years for those changes to amount to another species, so no. Let's say, for argument's sake, that you might get three new species every 10 million years, and the rest are only variations of their species.

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and people do claim that a dinosaur became a sparrow.

Link please? You're wrong. They've said that birds are related to dinosaurs. Huge difference. Evolution is not metamorphosis.

I already posted this in another thread, but I'll post it here too, in hopes that some kind of logic finds its way into your thick skull.

There is overwhelming proof of evolution. Look at the bulldog, for instance. Shaped by many generations of dog breeders for bullbaiting, and later for homely charm, they differ much from their wolfish progenitors. If domestic breeding can yield such change, natural selection over many millions of years could do much more. Wild species diverge from common ancestors just as domestic varieties do. There are more examples of this type of evolution than you can probably count.

Worker ants, preserved in amber from the Cretaceous period, offer another sort of evidence. Anatomical clues such as wasplike antennae and a broad waste reveal their ancestral status between wasps and ants.

In Egypt, a team of paleontologists found the nearly complete skeleton of a whalelike creature now called Dorudon. Dating back 40 million years, it had a detached pelvis near the end of its tail and useless little legs. Like the human hand, an early whale's front foot retains a five fingered bone structure. A vestigial rear foot has lost several toe bones, but its very existence testifies to the whale's decent from a four legged ancestor.

Many "missing links" are not missing.

Are you going to tell me that the tropical birds of remote islands with their huge diversities are not the result of isolation, time, and adaptation to local conditions, but were created and placed there individually?

Bacteria and viruses evolve too. Infectious agents often adapt quickly and acquire genetic resistance to drugs.

There is so much evidence of evolution, it's not even a question of whether it happens or not. The only thing we aren't clear on is to what extent evolution happens. Darwin may indeed be slightly wrong in some assumptions, but there can be absolutely no doubt that evolution does happen. That is what's fact, or considered fact by most non-religious humans, and even some who are religious. The fact is, there are more examples of evolution than anyone can even mention. You could dedicate your entire life to studying all of these examples, and still probably never see them all.

[edit on 25-1-2005 by Mr_Mojo_Rising]

I've been reading my thread over and i wanted to get some misconceptions out of the way before anymore comments come in.
I have noticed alot of misconception that creationists have about evolution and would like to address these.

Statements such as these, are complete NONSENSE:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

3.Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved
from protozoa.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
I've been reading my thread over and i wanted to get some misconceptions out of the way before anymore comments come in.
I have noticed alot of misconception that creationists have about evolution and would like to address these.

Statements such as these, are complete NONSENSE:

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

That's bunk? When did the evolutionary theory get renamed the law of evolution? How on earth can that be nonsense?

2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.

Uh...What about that statement is false? Obviously, if you're fit, you are more likely to survive. So wouldn't it stand to reason that those that typically survive are the fittest? I may be missing something in that statement...

3.Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Put evolution to the scientific method.:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
There is life on earth, a large variety of species that seem to specialize to their environment

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
Microevolution exists. Therefore, all species came from a single life form many years ago which could reproduce and mutate. Over time, the life forms adapted to their environment or died out.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
Gonna quote Darwin for this one.

By the theory of natural selection all living species have been connected with the parent-species of each genus, by differences not greater than we see between the varieties of the same species at the present day; and these parent-species, now generally extinct, have in their turn been similarly connected with more ancient species; and so on backwards, always converging to the common ancestor of each great class. So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon this earth [and will continue to do so]

Source: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Charles Darwin. Chapter 9
In addition to this, there will also be many transitory species discovered. Not my idea, Darwin's:

In the first place it should always be borne in mind what sort of intermediate forms must, on my theory, have formerly existed.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
Can't. We can observe micro evolution and we can keep digging and digging, but we can't test macroevolution through observation or experiment. Blast, so we were able to come up with a theory, we just can't support it. Hang on, though, there's still another step. Maybe we can recover.

. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.
Looks like we dun hit a wall. So that's why it's called a theory and not a law! Or is that still a nonsensical prospect?

4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

This is nonsense how? Evolution is under huge contestation right now not by the religious right but by the scientific community doing exactly what I did with the scientific method (though much, much, much better) and coming to the same conclusion. There are holes in evolution that are so big you wonder how the structure could support its self.

5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.

This one I'll give you. The two are totally unrelated, most scientific theories and hypothesis are contested by various scientists rahter heatedly.

6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This one goes to you, as well.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.

This is 100% true. evolution can't explain life's coming. There is another theory closely tied with evolution called abiogenesis which covers the start of life.

8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.

Coppedge states that even 1) postulating a primordial sea with every single component necessary for life, 2) speeding up the bonding rate so as to form different chemical combinations a trillion times more rapidly than hypothesized to have occurred, 3) allowing for a 4.6 billion- year-old earth and 4) using all atoms on the earth still leaves the probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is 1 in 10,261. Using the lowest estimate made before the discoveries of the past two decades raised the number several fold. Coppedge estimates the probability of 1 in 10^119,879 is necessary to obtain the minimum set of the required estimate of 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life form. That's a higer number than the predicted molecules in the universe. So I'm going to say no, it's extremely unprobable.

9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved
from protozoa.

It seems as though you're just stating the powerful arguements that show the holes in evolution and saying they're false without any substance backing it up. Explain how life could form despite the second law of thermodynamics.

10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

True, mutations could produce new features or the beginnings of them.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Uh...why is this nonsense?

12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.

Oh? Who is it that saw a new species evolve?

13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.

What do you have? Archaeopteryx? There are worlds of problems supporting the transitory aspect of that great bird. I'm standing by this statement that evolutionists cannot point to a transitional fossil until someone points out specifics instead of saying it's wrong, there are plenty. NAme em.

14. Living things have fantastically intricate features—at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels—that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.

How on earth would my eye work if it was evolving from a compound eye to an eye with a single lens? At some point, you're going to have a completely blind species, and how could they be the fittest?

15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

DArn tootin'! Do you have any idea how complex a simple cell is? You have a cell whose mitochondrea are still evolving, and therefor a dead cell. That's just one aspect of a cell. What about the semi-permiable cell wall? How did an amino acid become that and still allow the cell to feed but be protected durring it's evolution?

Thanks for the talking points. I'm assuming you'll respond with more evidence, so I'll be watching

Originally posted by LuDaCrIs
...By the way, to all those people that say God created evolution, i am still kinda baffled at this conclusion. He created adam and eve(this is based on the christian point of view) or some primary couple(as is with most religions) and then wat??...evolution stemmed from there??...I am still in the dark with how such a proposition would work. I think its a bit of a double standard.

I haven't read through all the posts yet, but if noone has answered your question in this paragraph, here is an explanation. Evolution happened in the "7 days" of creation. You see, the seven days of creation actually were not 7 days as we see them. How can you define a day if you don't even have a planet to rotate yet? Besides it all happened before man was there. So the seven days of creation are the whole process of evolution that led to human. Or was it six days? God rested on the seventh.

I must point out that I'm not saying I believe in this, I'm only stating this is one of the views on Zionist Creationism mixed with evolution. I only have faith that something happened and there is a being out there behind everything, but that's irrelevant to my post.

And for the two arguing about God being seen face to face with someone, the whole Bible and God as you read it are mistranslated. God is actually written as Elohim many times in the Old Testament. Elohim are those who came from the heavens if I remember correctly. Yes, that's a plural form. I'm not sure if the places you all discuss mention it as Elohim originally in Hebrew, but you might want to consult the original version and make further discussions.

Originally posted by steggyD
I only have faith that something happened and there is a being out there behind everything, but that's irrelevant to my post.

I feel the same way. I, in real life, tend to defend evolution with creationists. However, here on ATS it's usually the evolutionists who are making the better arguements, so I side with the creationists. The reason being, I want to address all the questions I have in my mind preventing me from making a decision on this issue. As long as I keep challenging those making a good arguement, I'll be getting more information with which to base my opinion on. As of now, as I've said countless times, I'm on the fence on this issue.

And for the two arguing about God being seen face to face with someone, the whole Bible and God as you read it are mistranslated. God is actually written as Elohim many times in the Old Testament. Elohim are those who came from the heavens if I remember correctly. Yes, that's a plural form. I'm not sure if the places you all discuss mention it as Elohim originally in Hebrew, but you might want to consult the original version and make further discussions.

There's another interpretation of the Hebrew use of Elohim. God was refering to the trinity. The nouns used interchange between plural and singualr, which makes it seems as though He is a single entity consisting of multiple parts, just as humans are single entities consisting of multiple parts: body, soul, and spirit.

The trinity was a theory created later on during the Roman Empire. I don't see how the people of the Old Testament had such a knowledge of the Trinity. But, hey, prove me wront, maybe in another thread though. We wouldn't want to hijack this one.

Originally posted by steggyD
The trinity was a theory created later on during the Roman Empire. I don't see how the people of the Old Testament had such a knowledge of the Trinity. But, hey, prove me wront, maybe in another thread though. We wouldn't want to hijack this one.

Actually, the trinity as it is known was, in fact, created after the fact. No where in the Bible does it mention a Holy Trinity. However, it does reference God the Father, Christ, the son of man, and God made flesh (aka The Word, who was there from the beginning), and the holy spirit. The "trinity" is simply a way to refer to these three aspects of God. As for the old testament not knowing about the trinity, many of the prophets predicted aspects of Christ. Besides, the Christian and Jewish belief is that the Book was written via devine influence. Moses may not have know why he wrote the plural, but he was the type to accept God's word without question. So he'd still put it in there, just not understand why.