Just the right time to make up god......

btw i neglected to mention carbon-14 is only found in organic stuffs, atleast only found in sufficient quantities on organic things

To the moderaters... I am not sure of the policy for posting links in a message. If I am not allowed to do this please let me know.

To those who call me closed minded:

www.talkorigins.org...

There are many more where that came from all saying about the same thing. Do any of you know who Stephen Hawking is? He is a scientist. Physics is his main gig. He is one of many people who are on the right track about things. Basically his idea is that believeing in a god has nothing to do with reality. There is still room for a god even after all the physics and science, because we as humans still do not have the ability to understand everything. I never said once that I did or didnt believe in God. What I am saying is that we know the earth is much older than 12,000 years. I am very open minded. I would be willing to accept anything if given proof. I accept things without proof as well, but I would be foolish if I disregarded hard evidence. Just because I dont take the bible leiterally doesnt mean that I am full of hate. (where-ever you got that from). Just because I dont take the bible literally doesnt mean that I am closed of mind. Those who are not willing to accept facts and incorporate them into their beliefs are the ones who are close minded.

Originally posted by Dravenn
We can have this conversation all day long and never get anywhere... First off, what aircraft did anyone ever create before the wright brothers... absolutely none... and if they drew plans of some aircraft, it was most likely a UFO.

My Mistake, on the quote i made in the last few posts, what i should have said was, The same people who wrote the bible believed the earth was also flat in fact to say otherwise was forbidden and regarded as blasphemy.

[note] I believe in God but in the way that we are all a part of God. It's like our super energy force as we are all Matter and survive on positives by nature. So yes prayer is important, the power of the mind is just that, powerful.

They (Archaeologists) found a wooden model of an airplane dated back a few thousand years found in the middle east somewhere, which now resides in the British Museum, i'll have to find a picture of it, its remarkably, err well, plane like



[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Sapphire]

I think that the people that wrote the bible knew about the universe.

The catholic church did not want to accept the public to know about the true nature of the universe as it would decrease the power the church held over the people.

It does not matter whether one believes in god or not because I cannot make someone believe anything. But I would suggest that there better be more than what we see and something more intelligent than humans or we truly are all doomed.

Originally posted by LeenBekkemaa

Originally posted by Sapphire
Amen ... however, the same People who declared the world was "flat" also believed in the Bible

What happens to all the other religions? To the describtions of the Ark of the Covenant (50 pages), the descriptions of the aircrafts, the technologies, the buildings, the 100.000ths of pages written, the knowledge of Sirius, the pyramids, the pyramids in China...

What happens to all of that? Can you explain that without religion? Can you explain the Refaim in Israel, why the Egyptians build the pyramids for the Gods, why Stone Hedge was an astronomical observatory for the Gods with rituals... can you explain...?

I can certainly try. The Ark of the Covenant is interesting, as i posted earlier in another area, some people decided to create a duplicate model explaining how the Ark worked and have found it most likely had a triggering device that, when touched improperly would have the capacity of electricity to kill a man. Which is probably why the Priests knew how they were supposed to handle the Ark. No one was allowed to view the contents inside of it either apart from the Priests.

I believe religion revolves around the stars and who knows, maybe Enlil and Enki were our God (s) God/Satan. Enlil lost and his brother Enki won as being the stronger one, driving Enlil out.

I dont know about you but we were obviously given a Religion to 'Control' the population. All Rulers throughout history have done this, Created something to make the people listen and obey their superiors.

Another thing i wanted to bring up was, the word Amen, where did it derive? Egypt ? hmm Amen Ra? and what about Seti? there's another one. They've used these terms long before Slang was an 'In' thing. Why would christians use the term? In England a Seti/Setee is merely a Couch or Sofa. And why aren't the Religious Community not doing something about the days of the week i mean, they're all named after Greek gods aren't they?

Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-belief im just Pro-Information history and culture and i have no wish to change anyones belief system, i think we all have the right to think for ourselves though.

[Edited on 7-11-2003 by Sapphire]

Originally posted by THENEO
I think that the people that wrote the bible knew about the universe.

The catholic church did not want to accept the public to know about the true nature of the universe as it would decrease the power the church held over the people.

It does not matter whether one believes in god or not because I cannot make someone believe anything. But I would suggest that there better be more than what we see and something more intelligent than humans or we truly are all doomed.

THENEO I agree. I've heard the Catholic Church holds many many archives dating back thousands of years beneath their foundations in massive libraries. Would be fun to find out, oh the Information we could find there eh! One can never have too much. The Vatican is it's own Country with it's own police force and Laws. It's not wonder! I think were coming to a time where we need to know and our desire for Knowlege has grown. Personally, i can't get enough, i'm forever searching for more of it.

THENEO,
I think you have the right idea of what was going on honestly. Efven if you do, that doesnt rule out the possiblity of a god. Just so everyone knows I am not saying I do or dont believe. I am not telling you that it is wrong to believe. I am arguing the historical value of the bible. There may be many occurances that are absolutely true in the bible. Many things in the bible are clearly false. The bible was a relatively recent book. More than likely it was written in good spirits by people who truly believed in what they were writing. That doesnt make it a history book. If the bible covers everything from creation to the death of Christ, the like I said before. Where do the dinosaurs come in? I mean come on. I think one of the first things I would write home about was a giant lizard chasing me at like 20 miles an hour with teeth as big as my feet trying to eat me. Animals as large as those wouldnt have fit on an ark anyway. look at how many animals species of animals there are on earth. You mean to tell me that Noah managed to put all of these on a boat? Hey, im just bringing it up being its part of the Bible. They didnt put dinosaurs in the bible because they didnt know that they existed. Why not? Because the dinosaurs were here long before people were around and able to write about them. Cut and Dry. So believe in God. Dont discredit things that are factual just because they dont mix with a book.

Seapeople,

all duly noted.

consider that reality is not really real thus much of what we are told is thus false in many ways. If that is the case then any source of information that is valid even to a degree is of great value.

thus the bible is of great value.

Originally posted by Seapeople
To the moderaters... I am not sure of the policy for posting links in a message. If I am not allowed to do this please let me know.

To those who call me closed minded:

www.talkorigins.org...

There are many more where that came from all saying about the same thing. Do any of you know who Stephen Hawking is? He is a scientist. Physics is his main gig. He is one of many people who are on the right track about things. Basically his idea is that believeing in a god has nothing to do with reality. There is still room for a god even after all the physics and science, because we as humans still do not have the ability to understand everything. I never said once that I did or didnt believe in God. What I am saying is that we know the earth is much older than 12,000 years. I am very open minded. I would be willing to accept anything if given proof. I accept things without proof as well, but I would be foolish if I disregarded hard evidence. Just because I dont take the bible leiterally doesnt mean that I am full of hate. (where-ever you got that from). Just because I dont take the bible literally doesnt mean that I am closed of mind. Those who are not willing to accept facts and incorporate them into their beliefs are the ones who are close minded.

im a little late with this, but hows this sound for proof? you like to listen to science i gather, and heres a load of science reguarding carbon14 dating. most is just the background info on how carbon dating works, but theres a good tidbit that in my mind very much seems to prove the idea of there being a great flood. is that proof enough for you?


Figure 147: Increasing Amounts of Carbon-14. Radiocarbon dating requires knowing the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere when the organic matter being dated was part of a living organism. The assumption (shown in red), which few realize is being made, is that this ratio has always been what it was before the industrial revolution6-about one carbon-14 atom for every trillion carbon-12 atoms. Willard Libby, who received a Nobel Prize for developing this technique, conducted tests in 1950 which showed more carbon-14 forming than decaying. Therefore, the amount of carbon-14 and the ratio must be increasing. He ignored his test results, because he believed the earth must be more than 20,000 -30,000 years old, in which case the amount of carbon-14 must have had time to reach equilibrium and be constant.3 In 1977, Melvin Cook did similar, but more precise, tests which showed that the ratio was definitely increasing, even faster than Libby�s test indicated.

Today, carbon-14 forms in the upper atmosphere at the rate of 21 pounds a year, but in 5,730 years, half of it decays. Therefore, carbon-14 would normally increase from the time of the creation, as shown by the blue line. Before the flood, the blue line levels off as the concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere approaches equilibrium-where the amount forming balances the amount decaying. Earth�s lush forests had so much carbon that the equilibrium level was much lower than today. Those forests, ripped up and buried during the flood, became our coal, oil, and methane deposits.

During the flood, carbon-12 released from the subterranean water chamber diluted the carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans even more. (Carbon-14 could not have formed in this chamber, because it was shielded from the cosmic radiation that produces carbon-14.) If one thought the C-14/C-12 ratio had always been what it is today, he would erroneously conclude that the reduced carbon-14 meant much time had passed. Instead, less carbon-14 was in the organism when it died.



Radiocarbon dates less than 3,500 years old are probably accurate. However, before accepting any radiocarbon date, one should know how the technique works, its limitations, and its assumptions. One limitation is that the radiocarbon technique dates only material that was once part of an animal or plant, such as bones, flesh, or wood. It cannot date rocks directly. To understand the other capabilities and limitations of radiocarbon dating, we must understand how it works and consider the flood.

Most carbon atoms weigh 12 atomic mass units. However, roughly one in a trillion carbon atoms weighs 14 atomic units. This carbon is called carbon-14. It is also called radiocarbon because it is radioactive (but not dangerous). Half of it will decay in about 5,730 years to form nitrogen. Half of the remainder will decay in another 5,730 years, and so on.

Cosmic radiation striking the upper atmosphere converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen each year into radiocarbon (carbon-14). Most carbon-14 quickly combines with oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which then spreads throughout the atmosphere. Plants take in carbon dioxide, incorporating in their tissues both carbon-14 (unstable) and normal carbon-12 (stable) in the same proportion as they occur in the atmosphere. Carbon-14 then moves up the various food chains to enter animal tissue-again, in about the same ratio carbon-14 has with carbon-12 in the atmosphere.

When a living thing dies, its radiocarbon loss (decay) is no longer balanced by intake, so its radiocarbon steadily decreases with a half-life of 5,730 years. If we knew the amount of carbon-14 in an organism when it died, we could attempt to date the time of death. The key questions then are: �Has the atmospheric ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 changed in the past, and if so, why and how much?� The assumption usually made, but rarely acknowledged, is that the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution1 was always the same-about one in a trillion. Actually, that ratio may have been quite different.

For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere�s ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages. If that ratio quadrupled, organic remains would appear 11,460 (2 x 5,730) years older, etc. Consequently, a �radiocarbon year� would not correspond to an actual year.

Therefore, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has, in general, been building up in the atmosphere since the flood. However, for the last 3,500 years, the increase in the ratio would be extremely slight. As explained in Figure 147, recent measurements show this.3

Radiocarbon dating of vertical sequences of organic-rich layers at 714 locations worldwide has consistently shown a surprising result.4 Radiocarbon ages do not increase steadily with depth, as one might expect. Instead, they increase at an accelerating rate. In other words, the concentration of carbon-14 is unexpectedly low in the lower organic layers. As one moves to higher and higher layers, this concentration increases rapidly, just as we would expect in the centuries after a worldwide flood.

Tree-ring dating allows us to infer how the atmospheric concentration of carbon-14 changed in the past. Some types of trees growing at high elevations with a steady supply of moisture will reliably add only one ring each year. In other environments, multiple rings can be added in a year.5 A tree ring�s thickness depends on the tree�s growing conditions, which vary from year to year. Some rings may even show frost or fire damage. By comparing sequences of ring thicknesses in two different trees, a correspondence can sometimes be shown. Trees of the same species that simultaneously grew within a few hundred miles of each other may have similar patterns. Trees of different species or trees growing in different environments have less similar patterns.

Claims are frequently made that wood growing today can be matched up with some scattered pieces of dead wood so that tree-ring counts can be extended back more than 8,600 years. This may not be correct. These claimed �long chronologies� begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods.7 This carries the chronology back perhaps 3,500 years. Then the more questionable links are established based on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes �missing� rings are added.8 Each tree ring�s width varies greatly around its circumference. Also, parts of a ring may be dead wood. Standard statistical techniques could establish how well the dozen supposedly overlapping tree-ring sequences fit. However, tree-ring specialists have refused to subject their judgments to these statistical tests and would not release their data, so others can do these statistical tests.9

Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, a specimen�s carbon-14 atoms can now be actually counted, giving a more precise radiocarbon date with even smaller samples. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only estimates the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations.

This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen-even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. This small, consistent amount is found so often among various specimens that contamination can probably be ruled out. Ancient human skeletons, when dated by this new �accelerator mass spectrometer� technique, give surprisingly recent dates. In one study of eleven sets of ancient human bones, all were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! 10

Radiocarbon dating of supposedly very ancient bones should provide valuable information. Why is such testing rare? Researchers naturally do not want to waste money on a technique that destroys their specimen and provides no specific age. Therefore, most researchers do not radiocarbon date any organic specimen they think is older than 100,000 years, even if it still contains carbon. All carbon-14 that was once in anything older than 100,000 radiocarbon years would have decayed; its age could not be determined. So, if a bone an evolutionist thinks is a million years old contains any detectable carbon-14, the bone is probably less than 100,000 radiocarbon years. Furthermore, Figure 147, shows why those �radiocarbon years� correspond to a much younger true age.


PREDICTION 36: Bones or other organic remains that contain enough carbon and are believed by evolutionists to be older than 100,000 years will be shown to be relatively young in blind radiocarbon tests. This prediction has now been confirmed.11 (Blind tests are explained on page 81.)



Very precise measurements now show that most fossils-regardless of presumed �geologic age�-have roughly the same ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12. (This includes fossil fuels: coal, oil, and methane.) Therefore, this former life must have been living at about the same time-less than 100,000 years ago. Because almost all fossils are preserved in water deposited sediments, all this former life was probably buried in a fairly recent, gigantic flood.12

Radiocarbon dating is becoming increasingly important in interpreting the past. However, one must understand how it works and especially how a flood affected radiocarbon dating. Radiocarbon ages less than 3,500 years are probably accurate. Ages around 40,000 radiocarbon years, which are typical of coal, probably have much younger true dates near the time of the flood, roughly 5,000 years ago.

(xenongod dug this up earlier in another thread, thanks goes to him.)

Be careful that you do not rail once. We want the Holy Spirit of God to be life and voice for us. Our tongue should be as the pen of a ready writer, because the Spirit of God is speaking through the human agent. When you use that twit and fling, you have stirred in some of yourself, and we do not want anything of that mixture.

Religion is just a way to control the masses. Most religions have accoplished that including rituals and "your going to hell" statements which control people. If it weren't for religion, most people wouldn't care what they did with their lives. So in a sense, we should just thank religion and let the people who beleive in these things beleive in them.

My second reason I beleive religion is so dominant regardless of the proof for religions is that people do things for three reasons : love, hope and fear, all of which are conveniently incorporated in religion.

My Mistake, on the quote i made in the last few posts, what i should have said was, The same people who wrote the bible believed the earth was also flat in fact to say otherwise was forbidden and regarded as blasphemy.

Historical correction. No Bible author ever considered it was blasphemy to say that the earth was not flat. In fact the fact that the earth was round was known in ancient times. Erasthones measured the circumference of the earth in around 100 B. C. Any sea going people (Greeks, Phonencians, etc.) figured out that the earth was round. The big argument was over the heliocentric view of comosology vs the geocentric view of comosology. That is whether the sun or the earth was in the center of the solar system. This occured during the time of Copernicus and Galileo (around the 1500's). The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church at that time was basing his stance that the earth was the center of the solar system not primarily on Biblical sources by on Greek philosphy (Aristotle). It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle who said that the earth was the center of the cosmos (and since certain portions of the Roman Catholic Church thought that the Greeks knew all secular knowledge, that was the stand of the Pope). I have challenged people to produce an ancient Hebrew text (other than the Bible) which states unequivocally that the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth is flat. To date no one has responded. The passages in the Bible use the same kind of language we use to day (i. e., "four corners of the earth" to indicate "extremes in distance", etc.). The passages are not unequivocal proof that the Hebrews believed that the earth was flat.

forsakenwayfarer:

Reach all you want. We know the earth is more than 12,000 years old. I asked you where you got your date of 12,000 years. You stated the bible says so. ANd i will refer you to the same easy argument once again. If the bible says that the earth is 12,000 years old, then where are the dinosaurs? They must have forgotten them, huh. I mean, it would have been hard to keep track of everything. Or, they could be from before humans were advanced enough to communicate. Therfore noone would have written about them. Common sense and logic. Dont close your mind to the truth because you are afraid to understand it. Just because the bible is a story, doesnt mean God doesnt exist. Creationalism is false. At least in the way its described in the bible. Just because we evolved doesnt mean that God didnt create life and plan for our evolution. There are things we as humans cant understand. Many of them. Why not just accept what we do understand and move on from there.

Well, I'm not going to waste time trying to "Prove" or "Disprove" The Bible & The Messages Written Within it or Judeo-Christian Beliefs. Personally I do not consider either of them to be 100% Truth or Free from Error, which I think even the Pope would agree since even the Vatican occasionally alters it's opinions and interpretations of certain area's. That is why even to this day there are many different interpretations of various degrees, some very similar, some very different.

Also I think the "total accuracy" or "proven" consepts are not always essential when it comes to understanding the Real Truth anyway. The areas that are the written truth, are truth. The areas that are written in error, are false. Both are tools for One to use to find their Way and Be One with, in, of, & for God. (God being their personal understanding of God, of course, which may or may not be linked to any specific Religious definitions.)

Most importantly I would like to point out something from the original post that should be understandable to all Faiths and even those without. (Made Bold Below)

Originally posted by Dravenn
...There is always the term... God works in mysterious ways. Or the saying, there is reason things happen the way they do...And then when something really bad happens, and death and destruction occurs, what has happened.. Of course, It is the devils work. Maybe, just maybe we should take responsibility for our own problems and stop blaming "god and devil" for all of our #...

All areas of Life and Humanity especially would benifit in all imaginable ways if everyone, religious or not, would comprehend the full meaning of the above statement and then live by it!

IMO Dravenn is of much better understanding of Truth than many, whether or not Dravenn agrees with the Bible or not. Thinking in the way Dravenn has been doing according to the above statement will lead to Dravenn Being One with The True Way & Knowing God in terms Dravenn understands.

P.S. I enjoyed the story about the Pastor running off with the 13 y/o, the churches money and abandoning his Wife. Not because I think it's a good idea or cool thing to do, but because I have similar "disturbingly true" stories of my own. I guess I should say "Interesting" instead of "Enjoyed" perhaps, in the same way I find a Car Accident, Train Wreck and Nuclear Explosions Interesting, but don't actually ENJOY them. But ya know what I mean...?!?!

Dravenn
Its no wonder you have doubts... your mind has been screwed with by all the Phoney Ideas of Religion
Truth is you are Energy part of the Eternal Conciousness
of the universe You have always BEEN..
And Always Will Be.... you are part of me as I am you
Dont fall For All the Stupidity people try to feed you
God is Love
There is no Devil or Evil really its all perception .. its a tool in the Education of your Soul
We have been Given By God the ability to Choose and experience Life as we choose ...
So my Advice to you is
Love... as God does
And forget about All the Bull #

Originally posted by Dravenn
Is it just me or is it weird how the main mass of religion came about at a time when prostitution and crime and murder rulled the land. I mean the whole world was unstable... everyone was at war... Killing was nothing uncommon. It just seems to me that this was good timing. What better way to make everyone stop in their tracks and wonder " if i do this, I am going to go to hell".

sadly religion did not begn with christianity as your post implies, there can be some types of religions belief and ceremonies that neanderthal man were proposed to have done. The world was not unstable, only their part. China and Australia and North America and South America and Africa all had religions and they weren't just goig about killing for fun thnking there is no reprocussion with their gods. the idea of punishment by the gods for your bad deeds in life is old, ancient egypt, they weighed your deeds against the feather of truth or sumtin as such, most christian beliefs ae a mixture of egyptian and nature religions. only the christian priets preaching that they would go to hell to put fear in their hearts was new to christianity, oh and they were amoung the first religoins that condemned people whom had beliefs that were different than the christian ones.

Straterx, I totally agree with SOME of what you said, however there are some things that just add to the confusion as well. (Keep in mind) I'm only using this one post as an example and am not trying to say that I completely understand what you do or don't believe in it's entirety.

Originally posted by straterx
Dravenn
Its no wonder you have doubts... your mind has been screwed with by all the Phoney Ideas of Religion

Are you speaking of a Specific Religion or All of them? I'm asking because you talk of "Phoney Ideas of Religion" but then go on to other ideas and speak of things of a Religious Nature like "God" and "Soul" but in terms of them "Not" being "Phoney" when you say them.

Truth is you are Energy part of the Eternal Conciousness
of the universe You have always BEEN..
And Always Will Be.... you are part of me as I am you

I would fully agree with this statement and have no problem with the way it's said. But using terms like "Eternal Conciousness" may not always be understood by everyone the same way as "Truth". IMO Dravenn (as well as others) will benifit more from "Understanding Truth" in their own terms.

Dont fall For All the Stupidity people try to feed you
God is Love
There is no Devil or Evil really its all perception .. its a tool in the Education of your Soul

If it's all perception or tools for education of the "Soul or Eternal Consciousness", then why is it "Stupidity of people" to percieve "God as Love" or "Devil as Evil"? Doesn't individual perception of things and ideas allow for such associations, as symbolic reminders or otherwise?

We have been Given By God the ability to Choose and experience Life as we choose ...
So my Advice to you is
Love... as God does
And forget about All the Bull #

The idea of God giving us Choice a tricky one for many reasons that I won't get into now. Again I would think it better that others "Define/Know/Understand" God on their own in the same way you have done for yourself. In doing so they will Truely Avoid "All the B.S." as you put it.

Hope I didn't offend you with this Straterx, as I wasn't meaning to pick on ya or shoot holes in what you posted. As I said earlier I would agree with most of what you wrote myself as well, atleast in how I read and understood it. The only thing I am trying to point out is instead of Bashing or Discrediting the Beliefs that Others have, it is often times more constructive to show the similarities of ideas between "Seemingly" opposite beliefs.

I never said anywhere in my post that Christians were the first religion. So i think you need to read my post again. I made have made countless examples of Ancient religions and thus forward. Before you start on me, please know what you are reading. This is a post to claim your feelings on this topic, not to turn around and try and bash someone for what they believe. I am not sitting here saying you are a moron if you believe in god, cause I never said that I didn't, All i am saying is the timing was right. For everything in this world to be proven true, there is a debate for all sides of the truth and lies. Who knows which one is true. If you want my honest opinion, you need to go back and read the bible more because the ten commandments were created because of the conditions that the region was under at the time. Heck, go rent the movie. You will see in that movie killing, prostitution, drunks and whatever else. I am talking about Christ here, not ancient rituals, not 100,000 bc.... I am talking about Jesus which was only 2000 years ago. So answer this, why if jesus was brought out 2000 years ago, why didn't god bring him about 10,000 years ago? Wouldn't that make more sense. To bring him about a long long time ago so that he would have a larger following? And why would god say that you need to give 10% of your money to the church? What god has no Value with money and honest don't think he would have ever asked anyone to give away their hard earned money, money to feed their kids, to a church... Sounds like a money scandal to me........

StraterX you seem very confinced about your idea of God etc. Now I can't say that that's wrong because I am also convinced of my own idea's

I just wonder:
Why should they have build the pyramids if it was all bull shyte? Everybody really believed they were there.

How do you explain the pyramids... Refaim... describtions etc.?
Ark of the Covenant
The describtion of the Ark of the Covenant... 50 pages of technical description written...

How do you explaim?



And why do you call the energy... God? That's a bit confusing I guess...

Originally posted by jagdflieger

My Mistake, on the quote i made in the last few posts, what i should have said was, The same people who wrote the bible believed the earth was also flat in fact to say otherwise was forbidden and regarded as blasphemy.

Historical correction. No Bible author ever considered it was blasphemy to say that the earth was not flat. In fact the fact that the earth was round was known in ancient times. Erasthones measured the circumference of the earth in around 100 B. C. Any sea going people (Greeks, Phonencians, etc.) figured out that the earth was round. The big argument was over the heliocentric view of comosology vs the geocentric view of comosology. That is whether the sun or the earth was in the center of the solar system. This occured during the time of Copernicus and Galileo (around the 1500's). The Pope of the Roman Catholic Church at that time was basing his stance that the earth was the center of the solar system not primarily on Biblical sources by on Greek philosphy (Aristotle). It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle who said that the earth was the center of the cosmos (and since certain portions of the Roman Catholic Church thought that the Greeks knew all secular knowledge, that was the stand of the Pope). I have challenged people to produce an ancient Hebrew text (other than the Bible) which states unequivocally that the ancient Hebrews believed that the earth is flat. To date no one has responded. The passages in the Bible use the same kind of language we use to day (i. e., "four corners of the earth" to indicate "extremes in distance", etc.). The passages are not unequivocal proof that the Hebrews believed that the earth was flat.

Actually yes they did

www.miafacts.org...

Copernicus
Everyone has heard the story about Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543) whose treatise On the revolutions of the heavenly spheres (published 1543) argued that the earth revolved around the sun. This thesis directly countered current scientific belief, which held that the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around the earth.

The problem was that, at this time, the western world was in the grip of "the church" -- the Holy Apostolic Catholic Church -- and the view of the church was that man was a creation of god, god had put man on the earth, and god's creation -- man on his earth -- is the center of the universe. In the eyes of the Church, any suggestion to the contrary was blasphemy and cause for excommunications. Thus, Copernicus's theory was considered implausible by the vast majority of his contemporaries, and by most astronomers and natural philosophers of succeeding generations until the middle of the seventeenth century.



[Edited on 10-11-2003 by Sapphire]