It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

“Did you know (many) Scientists are afraid of the Bible?”

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
For one, something like those photos aren't really related to the topic of this thread: If you want to discuss it any further than I do in this post, start another thread & U2U me as to where to find it. I don't want to let this thread get derailed any more than you've already tried to do.

Second, nice pics, but there's no actual facts of any kind to back up what seems to be evident in the pics: Even theories need some facts. The facts that should be looked at before any theories can be formed would be asking specific questions, such as, "What quarry did those stones originally come from?" "What attempts have been made to determine the dating process on the cuts themselves, as well as the stone that were cut?" "Any other pertinent social & engineering history of the time that needs scrutiny before a theory can be formed?"

We should also examine the socio-political time frame during the building of the Giza Pyramids & well as the history of the people up to that point in time. Egyptology is not merely a single branch of science...Egyptologists also have geologists, archeologists, philologists, sociologists & a whole much bigger slew of "-gists" that work in conjunction with each other to make up Egyptology.


Lots of other related facts need to be questioned before I give any definitive answer. The only real point I'm going to make in this thread is that I'm not just going to take a glance at some "eye candy" photos & "Oooo! Ahhh!" at them until the situation itself has been examined...And steer that topic into another thread so this one doesn't get derailed. ATS already has a slew of Egypt/Pyramid-type threads & I'd point them out to you...If I could get the ATS Search function to work...Because those threads are a few years old already.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by MidnightDStroyer]




posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 



S, yes...

I agree with you, MidnightDStroyer's post's were good/informative...for sure.

Nice response from you as well...as usual...

I'm taking Phillies in the series...yeah, they won game one, I know...

OT just noticed how professional they have been after WINS...no hype, etc...I'm off target, sorry

Question-why have the other thread-skeptics ignored MDS's worthy post/questions????

Is OT's thread title TRUE?

Are they afraid of a good, for lack of a better word, CREATIONIST'S point of view...I'm speaking of ME here of course...

The boys were SO vehement, earlier...all can read the sequence, right?

You are a strong man, never afraid of debate, for sure...

But where are they now??

I, again, thank you...for the STONES..no retreat on your part...

Thing is, we have DISAGREED, in more posts, than you can count...YET, you are here, as you have already been...ready to bantor/debate/discuss...

What about the others?

OT's got more evidence..from scientists, etc...

Refering to... en.wikipedia.org...:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Have you seen this?

Some holes...yes

But overall creditable, in my mind....

OT really interested in your take...AFTER YOU SEE IT, OK?

OT out...game two is on!





posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
reply to post by Old Man
 


come on, how has the bible ever been right, I want to know


Genesis says there was no rain the first 2,000 years, that the Earth was watered by a perpetual mist.

Scientists find that early petrified trees have no growth rings.

BTW, "science" just figured that one out.



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


NOTurTypical, Thanks for the thought…

I did a little seeking here and found this supplemental site to your post…

www.wyattmuseum.com...


Growth rings in trees and other plants are caused by a variation in the water supply to the plant. Annual rings occur when the temperature drops and the sap in the tree fails to rise. The leaves of the deciduous trees turn color and die, soon dropping off. In the spring, the warmth releases the tree from its state of "hibernation" and the sap begins to flow again. Even though there may be water in the ground, when the temperature drops, the tree does not continue its cycle until it is again spring. Therefore, a ring results when the growth is temporarily halted and begins when spring arrives.



In order to understand why the pre-flood wood showed no growth rings one needs only to consult the Bible. It informs us that before the flood it did not rain; therefore there were not wet and dry seasons. Growth was at a constant rate.



And yet another...Genesis2:5 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD GOD HAD NOT CAUSED IT TO RAIN UPON THE EARTH, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But THERE WENT UP A MIST FROM THE EARTH, AND WATERED THE WHOLE FACE OF THE GROUND."



posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
 



S, yes...

I agree with you, MidnightDStroyer's post's were good/informative...for sure.

Nice response from you as well...as usual...

...

Refering to... en.wikipedia.org...:_No_Intelligence_Allowed

Have you seen this?

Some holes...yes

But overall creditable, in my mind....

OT really interested in your take...AFTER YOU SEE IT, OK?

OT out...game two is on!


I will have a look at this film once I find it. Although I have to agree with one of the quotes from wiki that ID is not a science nor does it have any scientific premise to back up its claims. Its like me stating that the universe was created by a tribe of space pixies and that the design in nature is proof that these pixies were the ones who did it. To me it is a claim that bears no merit for it is unprovable and therefore should not be submitted.


N.B. as for Ron Wyatt - give me break, the guys lost the plot, its like mentioning Ken Hovind. I mean the guy's 'found' evidence for virtually everything biblical from Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant and DNA evidence that Jesus was born of a virgin, claims that no-one else can substantiate, we're not ALL that gullible... ARE WE????

His claims are dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars and Christian leaders even in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but he continues to have a strongly motivated if narrowly based following among some fundamentalists and evangelicals WIKI

As for his no tree ring growth, isn't the oldest living thing supposed to be between 7500 and 11,700 years old (some creosote bush in the Mojave) which kind of puts paid to a global flood 5000 years ago and also the fact that the 'timbers' Wyatt tested weren't even timbers at all here.

Keep on thinking OT


G



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 


shihulud,

You get a chance to see the film we discussed?

I'm about ready to go to the new 007 movie this weekend with my 17 yr old daughter...she's thinks he's hot
oh well she's growing up



Hope all is well...let me know what you think of the Ben Stein film...I really enjoyed it...some issues, but overall quite provoking!!!

God bless you

OT out



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
It's not that they or I fear the bible, it's the fact that these people know that it's a load of rubbish, total lies to control the dumb people


It's because scientists are one of the most close minded people I've ever known on this planet. If science is a religion, then scientists are the most religious people on earth. They treat anything other than science as 'evil'

Sad for them many scientific principles are in the Bible. I'll give one example like 'oligodynamics' which is disinfection by metals, and the Bible knew what these oligodynamic metals where like bronze, silver, and gold, and where on several occasions described in the Bible to be used specifically for cleaning and preserving purposes.

I keep an open mind always but I'm uncertain the the Bible is 100% truthful. There are simply many verses that don't quite agree with each other.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


ahnggk!!!!!!!!!!

Newbie? huh?

Freakin' ROCKIN!!!!!!!!!!!

You go!!!!

Thanks young man...good contiribution!!!!

OT out



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 
OT I have just read through this thread and I would like to tell you that you are a very smart man! I think scientist are afraid of religion. This is a wonderful way to "get the word out." Kudos to you! It sure got people talking. I just wonder how non-believers live day to day not believing in God, or any "higher power." I believe that the Bible teaches us to love and be kind to one another. Just because some religious people down through the ages were terrible dosen't mean it spoils the whole basket. I believe in science myself and think without it we might not be around, maybe they were put here to serve just that purpose.




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by PammyK
reply to post by OldThinker
 
OT I have just read through this thread and I would like to tell you that you are a very smart man! I think scientist are afraid of religion. This is a wonderful way to "get the word out." Kudos to you! It sure got people talking. I just wonder how non-believers live day to day not believing in God, or any "higher power." I believe that the Bible teaches us to love and be kind to one another. Just because some religious people down through the ages were terrible dosen't mean it spoils the whole basket. I believe in science myself and think without it we might not be around, maybe they were put here to serve just that purpose.



PammyK,

Wow!

Thank you!! i have lived LONG enough to not be PROUD!

Your comments have made my Night!!!!

Thanks so much, ok? BTW, There are many, very SMART folks...who are my 'contridictors'......not 'enemies' though....

We, are to be a 'light' in this dark world...

We are to be accepting folks...

We are to be examples of the LOVE OF GOD...

We are to present him, who is... www.youtube.com... ...SAVIOR!

We are freakin' BOOMIN!!!!!!!!!! See... www.youtube.com...

= = = = =

I don't know....life is hard!!!!! OT's just here to be a seed - planter...honored, more than anything!!!!!

Thx! SO much...

TOBY MAC, do what u do!!!!!!!!



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
 


shihulud,

You get a chance to see the film we discussed?

I'm about ready to go to the new 007 movie this weekend with my 17 yr old daughter...she's thinks he's hot
oh well she's growing up



Hope all is well...let me know what you think of the Ben Stein film...I really enjoyed it...some issues, but overall quite provoking!!!

God bless you

OT out
Just watched the film - hmmmmmm where do I start? Provoking - yes, biased - to an extent. The first hour was thoroughly enjoyable until ID became creationism, bringing in nazi-ism and eugenics as an argument was below the belt. I agreed and disagreed all the way through it although one point was never expanded on (except at the end by Dawkins in a roundabout way) in that ID supposes the complex 'design' on Earth is evidence for an intelligence - fair enough I suppose, however that also implies that the 'designer' would be more complex and therefore also require a designer ad infinity. To explain this away as being the creation of a infinite external entity does more damage to the 'theory' than the theory that complex life originated from simple beginnings.


All in all a very very good film.


Any specifics you wish to discuss???


G



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by shihulud

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
 


shihulud,

You get a chance to see the film we discussed?

I'm about ready to go to the new 007 movie this weekend with my 17 yr old daughter...she's thinks he's hot
oh well she's growing up



Hope all is well...let me know what you think of the Ben Stein film...I really enjoyed it...some issues, but overall quite provoking!!!

God bless you

OT out
Just watched the film - hmmmmmm where do I start? Provoking - yes, biased - to an extent. The first hour was thoroughly enjoyable until ID became creationism, bringing in nazi-ism and eugenics as an argument was below the belt. I agreed and disagreed all the way through it although one point was never expanded on (except at the end by Dawkins in a roundabout way) in that ID supposes the complex 'design' on Earth is evidence for an intelligence - fair enough I suppose, however that also implies that the 'designer' would be more complex and therefore also require a designer ad infinity. To explain this away as being the creation of a infinite external entity does more damage to the 'theory' than the theory that complex life originated from simple beginnings.


All in all a very very good film.


Any specifics you wish to discuss???


G


I guess the thing that surprized me...was the traditional 'origin' establishment group was SO negative to an opposing view...

I don't know, if just seemed they were closed-minded...my background into education was, something to this effect..."let all views be put on the table....debate it...and you decide!" You know fair-and-balanced stuff...

See... www.the-scientist.com...


First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.



Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?



The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.


so...the article concludes...

"Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power. "


= = = = = =

?????

"Can't they all just get along"



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
A related article here... www.sciencevalidatesbible.com... continues my frustration...thoughts anyone?


Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was a meticulous scientist who postulated his theories on hundreds of facts. The reigning scientific leaders of his day rained down scorn on his theories without providing any alternative explanation for the events described. They then maliciously attacked Velikovsky and belittled him at every turn.

Immanuel Velikovsky was in good company because the greatest men of all time were at one time condemned and belittled by their peers.

In 1808, Dalton, the father of the atomic theory was belittled and lost his job in the university for teaching children the atomic theory.
In 1846, Dr Semmelweis was put into a mental institution for trying to get doctors to wash their hands before surgery.
Albert Einstein, who was unquestionably the most famous scientist of the twentieth century, had to withstand more efforts by the establishment attempting to disprove his theory of relativity than has ever been made to disprove any other theory in the history of science.
The efforts to disprove Einstein was demonstrably shown by one of his opponent's publications entitled One Hundred Against Einstein, to which he remarked that “if they were right, one would be enough". Max Planck, a father of modern physics and Nobel Prize winner in 1903, stated that "An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the beginning".

Velikovsky, agreeing with Max Planck, said it best, “Innovation is a twofold threat to the scientific hierarchy. First, it threatens their oracle authority. Secondly, it evokes the deeper fear that their whole laboriously constructed authoritarian edifice may soon collapse". He also said, "Resistance to innovation is clearly demonstrated, not by the ignorant masses, but by professionals with a vested interest in tradition and the monopoly of learning".

Albert Einstein had worked with Velikovsky the last two years of his life, and was planning a to create a research program to prove his theories. Einstein, who died with Velikovsky's book, “Worlds in Collision" open on his desk, said it best when referring to Velikovsky's critics, "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

And so despite the uphill battle, road blocks and mine fields maintained by the scientific hierarchy of the day in an attempt to defend their prestigious status quo, science managed to progress. It "progressed" to the point where, by the 1950's, the scientific establishment arrogantly announced to the world that "in this atomic age, all there is to know has already been learned and all future advancements would be simply rearrangements of current knowledge."

The old adage, "The more we know, the less we know" was certainly not believed by this incredibly arrogant group of scientists. It was this same group of scientists who attacked Velikovsky"s book, "Worlds in Collision, " first published in 1954. This group wrote hundreds of articles condemning Velikovsky's theories, but never provided any proof that he was wrong. They never provided any alternative theories to explain the events in history.

There are many geological phenomena that cannot be explained by Velikovsky's critics, but are readily explainable with Velikovsky's theories.

For example, geologists cannot explain how a 50 foot coal seam was formed. Geologists know that coal was formed by trees and vegetation being compressed by sediment They know that it takes 10 feet of vegetation to make one foot of peat. They know that it takes ten feet of peat to make one foot of coal. Therefore extrapolating, a 50 foot coal seam would have required 5,000 feet of trees and vegetation, which these same geologists say is impossible.

However, Velikovsky explains that when a 1000 foot tsunami hits the forests, it uproots a large number of trees, which float to the surface in huge piles that are at some point deposited on newly formed beaches. After this sequence is repeated a few times, thousands of feet of trees and vegetation would be lying on the beach, ready for burial by the incoming sediments. They have become ready to be processed into coal.

Another example of logical explanation is regarding Atlantis, which geologists say is a myth. And yet geologists describe the glaciers covering North America and Europe as being 6000 feet high, which would have lowed the oceans 700 feet and resulted in a large island, Atlantis, southwest of Gibraltar.

Today, the internet is the great equalizer. It allows anyone to postulate any theory, but they are doing it before the court of public opinion, and not with arrogant scientists. Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky was one of the greatest thinkers and scientists of the 20th century. Millions have read his books, and millions believe his theories.

Dr. Velikovsky wrote several books, including:

Worlds in Collision
Earth in Upheaval
Ages in Chaos
Peoples of the Sea
Stargazers and Gravediggers
Mankind in Amnesia..."


[edit on 15-11-2008 by OldThinker]



posted on Nov, 15 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker


I guess the thing that surprized me...was the traditional 'origin' establishment group was SO negative to an opposing view...
I suppose it would just be the same view that the christians took when confronted with so called witches and people like Galileo etc.


I don't know, if just seemed they were closed-minded...my background into education was, something to this effect..."let all views be put on the table....debate it...and you decide!" You know fair-and-balanced stuff...
As I said religions held a similar view and to an extent still very much do (ie the close mindedness) as do many scientists. It is the concept of pride/ego and most of all the feeling of being perceived to be WRONG that closes the minds of most. I very much agree with the notion of 'put in on the table...debate it.'... and then decide for yourself how much you agree or disagree. As I have said in other posts - I am not an atheist due to the views of others (they might help in my conviction) but mainly due to my agreement or ultimately disagreement with the evidence put on the table




First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
I will agree that I find ID more palatable than creationism and could even subscribe to an extent. Creationism digs a deep hole into close mindedness with the assumption that the Judeochristian god is the architect without even contemplating other scenarios i.e the creation myths of other cultures/ panspermia or even that life DID arise through natural causes. I myself find it perfectly plausible that life on Earth could have been seeded or manipulated by an intelligence (just not one that forgoes rationale) but also can just as easily find it plausible that life arose via natural processes i.e simple to complex.



Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?
I agree that even the most simple celled lifeform is very very complex but that still does not detract from the idea that this complexity could very well have come about from natural processes from simpler objects (not a good word). Its not inconceivable that life may have arisen from 'dead' molecules



The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.
Subjectivity and personal experience are in NO WAY a basis for the existence or non existence of a creator and also not 'observable fact' however much the subjectivity enforces the ideal.


so...the article concludes...

"Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power. "
The same can be said for the religious faithful in their inference of a deity


= = = = = =

?????


"Can't they all just get along"
It would seem not, the pride/ego concept comes into its own here.


As for your next post on Velikovsky, I have a few of his books but it is correct that the mans ideals are slightly outdated and in some parts delusional. He was in no way an expert in this field of inquiry - I regard him much in the same way as Von Daniken, Sitchen and such like. An interesting read though.


G



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by shihulud
 



shihulud

Thanks...hey where'd you grow up?

What's the bases of your world view?

WHO do you thank when things go well? other than family?

What do you believe ?

OT



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ahnggk
 


Scientists are not closed minded in the least. They just require evidence before something is accepted as happening or has happened. That's it. They will believe anything that can be demonstrated. That can not be said for anyone less rational, as they will stick to their guns on certain aspects even when the evidence is showing that not to be the case.

It seems labeling scientists as "closed minded" is just an argumentative cop-out for the real closed-minded folks out there. Clearly they don't know anything about science.

The Bible might have indeed got that right - it was written in the Bronze age, and people did know about stuff like that back then. It did, though, say a bunch of ridiculously incorrect stuff, though, so I don't quite know how you can think it's a good textbook when it's both right and wrong - you can't tell which it is until you test it, but then that's science right there, something you hate (even though it got you every medicine you've ever taken, the computer you are looking at, the food you eat, the car you drive, the TV you watch, the phone you use, everything around you).



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Refreshing to see threads like these on ATS,seeing threads like these hears is a rarity.Nothing but the Truth though,keep oin truthin it.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 



dave420,

nice post, OT's catching a plane as we speak, l'll respond in more detail later when l land...

I, do, think, the 'intellectual' crowd has written off the GOOD BOOK, so in a sense, they are a tad 'closed-minded'...?



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pockets
reply to post by Old Man
 


come on, how has the bible ever been right, I want to know


Isaiah said a guy named Cyrus would destroy Babylon. 500 years later it happend.

"This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut"

Isaiah 45:1



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by lucidclouds
 


lucidclouds,

nice one, doubt you'll get a response, seems like the atheists are all at a conference...or asleep?


[edit on 17-11-2008 by OldThinker]




top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join