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.

 

The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?

page: 25
25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 06:42 AM
link   
I believe the Bible facts are written in such a way that it makes everything seam like nonsense. Take Genesis chapter one for instance. The way it is written makes it seam like God is preforming magic.

The Bible is a story book, but its the most important story ever written. No other book has ever killed or affected more people because of the Books content. That alone makes the Bible one of the most important books ever written.

Why is the Bible so damn important? Because It makes people sacrifice and worship blindly based on faith alone. Now Moses had faith in God, but the question is which God?

-And which God was present when Cain and Able presented their sacrifice?
Where does it say that, Thee God demanded a sacrifice from Cain and Able? Where did Cain and Able get the idea of sacrifice from?

- Which God would demand a sacrifice in blood twice a day to have us excused from our sins?
Does it make any sens that Thee God would want us to sacrifice a innocent animal that he had created, so that he could forgive us from our sins? That is nothing but nonsense. But the bible does present this action as a very sensible thing to do. And that is because it is demanded from a God that is not thee God of creation, but a God who is playing the role as thee God.

- Why would Jesus want to get rid of the sacrifice of blood, if that is what thee God had demanded? Because our sacrifice and worship was based on nothing but nonsense. The sacrifice of blood was a command from a false God who presented himself to us as light and fire.

The presence of Thee God is only really mentioned once in the Bible, and that is in Genesis chapter one. The blood thirsty Lord God of Israel is nothing but a cold blooded killer, who commands man to do horrific things in Thee Gods name.








[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


“Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.


Sorry to say Kapyong but you are 100% wrong in your statement above! Dead wrong! Btw, who are you referring to “Everyone” - care to elaborate/correct it?

By any chance you mean:

“Everyone knows the Bible is not historical” are only those people (including you) who have no faith and don’t believe that the Bible Is the Word of God?

Then you said this:

Rubbish.
That's why you did NOT quote ANY examples.
Because the Bible is FANTASY.
Why can't you provide even ONE such example of
"archaeological discoveries prove the historical account of the Bible to be true"
...
That's NOT support for the ACCOUNT in the bible.
The reason you cannot ever provide any example, is because there ARE no examples - the bible is religious fantasy, none of the events happened.
Please DON'T paste a list of real places in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.
Please DON'T paste a list of real people in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.
The issue is the EVENTS in the bible - they did NOT occur.

Kap


Kap, interesting way of asking a question - you ask for an example of biblical events and yet you say “DON'T paste a list of real places in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.” and “DON'T paste a list of real people in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.”
“The issue is the EVENTS in the bible - they did NOT occur.”

By your own rule how can one prove that a Bible EVENT occurred if you don’t even allow the Bible to be quoted?

I can't help but ask, is your position/belief so weak and unfounded that you have to include a “NO Bible qoute” rule in order to fortify your claims? What's the point of this thread then?

May I also ask, are you somehow afraid that the Bible will prove you wrong?

In any event, I'll try play by your rules as best as I can - one hand tied to my back as the saying goes.

Let’s take a look at the historical facts. I’ll take one of the items (proof) that Texastig provided already namely:


5. Belshazzar... of Babylon.


According to critics like you they claim that since he is known only in the Holy Scriptures therefore there's no such person and thus viewed the Bible as worthless – a “FANTASY” if you will.

Do you still believe your fellow critics? For your own sake I hope not.

Because according to an article by Alan Millard in Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1985), in 1854 an inscription was unearthed in Iraq containing a prayer for the long life and good health of Nabonidus and his eldest son. The name of this son? Belshazzar! So there was a Belshazzar in Babylon! Since 1854, many other inscriptions have been found to confirm this.

Undeterred by their obvious humiliation, however, your fellow critics asserted that the writer of Daniel was mistaken in using the expression “Belshazzar the king.” Their defense - none of those inscriptions call Belshazzar king. They refer to him as the king’s son or as crown prince.

Since my Bible accurately identify him as the King of Babylon (Dan 5:1)

my question to you is:

Do you agree with my Bible or with your fellow critics?

If you agree with your buddies then please prove me wrong – provide historical and archaeological evidence.

Btw, according to R. P. Dougherty, in his work Nabonidus and Belshazzar he said the following : “The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar.”(p. 200)

But if you agree that my Bible is correct then the following EVENT must be TRUE – 100% historically accurate.

EVENT:

(I know you don't believe that the following event occurred – as they are just FANTASY to you – but I still need to describe it to explain my point – that the Bible as the Word of God is historically accurate)

According to the book of Daniel, during the night of the feast and under the influence of wine, Belshazzar called for the vessels from the temple of Jerusalem to be brought so that he and his guests and his wives and concubines might drink from them while praising the Babylonian gods. Obviously, this request was due to no shortage of drinking vessels, but, rather, it constituted a deliberate act of contempt by this pagan king in reproach of the God of the Israelites, Jehovah/Yahweh. (Da 5:2-4) He thereby expressed defiance of Jehovah, who had inspired the prophecies foretelling Babylon’s downfall. While Belshazzar seemed lighthearted about the siege set by the enemy forces, he was now severely shaken when a hand suddenly appeared and began writing on the palace wall. His knees knocking, he called upon all his wise men to provide an interpretation of the written message, but to no avail. The record shows that the queen now gave him sound counsel, recommending Daniel as the one able to give the interpretation. (Da 5:5-12) Daniel, by inspiration, revealed the meaning of the miraculous message, predicting the fall of Babylon to the Medes and the Persians. Though the aged prophet condemned Belshazzar’s blasphemous act in using vessels of Jehovah’s worship in praising see-nothing, hear-nothing, know-nothing gods, Belshazzar held to his offer and proceeded to invest Daniel with the position of third ruler in the doomed kingdom.—Da 5:17-29.
Belshazzar did not live out the night, being killed as the city fell under “the army of Cyrus (II) and entered Babylon without a battle.” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, pp. 109, 110; see also Da 5:30.)(See Da 5:30.)

All this begs the question:

Did this EVENT actually occurred or NOT or as you put it just “FANTASY”?

If NOT (I wonder if you) will you also consider the recognized, established historical and archaeological records as “FANTASY” since they confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible?

Or will you use the often quoted critic defense that the book of Daniel was really written centuries after the fall of Babylon! That is after the fact.

If so, tell me this please, how did its author know about Belshazzar, who had been overlooked by other historians and your fellow critics?

And why did he call him “king,” following a custom that was understood when Belshazzar was alive but forgotten in later centuries?

Cont....



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
...

Surely, the reference in the book of Daniel to “Belshazzar the king” is strong evidence that the book was in truth written by someone who lived in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. - a further PROOF that the Bible as the Word of God is Historically Accurate. Don't you agree?

I'll await your reply.



Here are just some (more) historical events that my Bible says are historically accurate: written in stone.

Shishak’s Victory (1 Ki. 14:25-28; 2 Chron. 12:1-12).

The Moabite Stone. ((2 Ki. 1:1; 3:4, 5)

King Sennacherib’s Prism. (2 Ki. 18:13–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1-22; Isa. 35:1–37:38)

The Cyrus Cylinder. (Isa. 44:28; 45:1; 2 Chron. 36:23.)

Sargon's conquest of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6 )


Do you believed your fellow critics that these (historical/biblical) events did not occur also or as you put it are “FANTASY”? If so please prove it? It's easy to say they did not occur – disproving them is a different story.

And in addition how and where did the Bible writers got their information from with great detail and specificity – 100% historically accurate if they are just FANTASY?

I'll await an answer from any critics to disprove that the Bible Is the Word of God.

Note – these are just few events, if we also consider just a couple more places and persons named in the Bible, the strand of truth is reliably strong.

Now if we interwove the following strands, the rope of Truth IS UNBREAKABLE!

Please consider (take your pick):

Races and languages:
What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family.

Practicality:
he Bible’s teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books.

Scientific accuracy:
When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking – 100% accurate.

Cultures and customs:
On points relating to cultures and customs, in no regard is the Bible found to be wrong. In political matters, the Bible always speaks of a ruler by the proper title that he bore at the time of the writing.

Candor:
Bible writers displayed a candor that is not found among other ancient writers. From the very outset, Moses frankly reported his own sins as well as the sins and errors of his people, a policy followed by the other Hebrew writers. They willingly admitted and revealed their faults.

Integrity:
Facts testify to the integrity of the Bible. The Bible narrative is inseparably interwoven with the history of the times.

Prophecy:
If there is a single point that alone proves the Bible to be the inspired Word of Jehovah it is the matter of prophecy. There are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled.


And as I've already stated before and will state again, the Bible IS the Word of God! No doubt about it.

Based on just the above Truths, there's no other book in existence that can compare to it or even match it.

Can you?

Thanks,
edmc^2



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Kapyong
 


“Everyone knows the Bible is not historical.


Sorry to say Kapyong but you are 100% wrong in your statement above! Dead wrong! Btw, who are you referring to “Everyone” - care to elaborate/correct it?




Evidence of talking donkeys, bushes, and snakes please. Historical evidence of making many of a few with magic, earth covering floods, zombies, angels, virgin births, well you know I can go on and on here. Let's start with those. Those are key factors in the NARRATIVE that is the collection of books making up the bible. If they are historical, then they are are historical. You cannot claim they are historical except for some parts that maybe have not been proven yet. Saying it IS is quite definitive so I eagerly await your historical evidence for the bible as indicated at the beginning of my posts. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Im just gonna make this easy and copy and paste what i just wrote in another thread...

Ok
First off... God never created religion.... man did!
Secondly...It is all you religious fanatics holding humankind back...i dont care if you worship Jesus Christ or Krishna...There is One God....One God for the Whole human race!!
Religions need to die for the human race to become one again and flourish( Not black, White, Arab, Indian ,Catholic, Christian, Buddah, Muslim, Etc.)...as it was intended to be.

I dont care if the " Bible says" this or the "Bible says" that.
Its a bunch of BS.
Jonah and the whale..3 days!! Come on!! Enough said.
Start taking the blinders off folks...easier to connect the dots that way.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   


“Everyone knows the Bible is not historical” are only those people (including you) who have no faith and don’t believe that the Bible Is the Word of God?


Faith doesn't make something historical and even some who have faith in God STILL question the historicity of the Bible.



By your own rule how can one prove that a Bible EVENT occurred if you don’t even allow the Bible to be quoted?


With archeology Einstein. Anyone can write a book about the supernatural and use real people and real places in said book. The Iliad and the Odyssey are prime examples of books that have a historical grounding but are expanded into myth by their authors including gods and monsters. Are you going to claim that quoting the Iliad proves Achilles was part god? NO, of course not.

Want to prove the Bible is historically accurate? Show that it is scientifically feasible to build a tower into the heavens using only primitive building materials. Find proof that people really lived to be 900+ years old. Show that it is possible to fit all the species of the Earth on a wooden boat of the same size as Noah's. Prove that evolution is false and that things were magically conjured into being in their adult form. ETC ETC ETC. Offer solid evidence of any of these and you've got yourself a better case for a historical Bible.


May I also ask, are you somehow afraid that the Bible will prove you wrong?


The Bible must be proven right in order to prove anyone wrong.


Since my Bible accurately identify him as the King of Babylon (Dan 5:1)


So an article in a Biblical Archeology Review shows this guy to have been king? And your point is? Surely you don't think this proves the Bible is historically accurate. I'm well aware it contains some real names and real places BUT the supernatural elements and much of the events of its pages are unproven. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - one King of Babylon doesn't do squat to prove the other insanity going on. God commanding genocide left and right, angels appearing to people, resurrections, spontaneous magical creation, talking snakes, UNICORNS (in the King James at least) - Sorry but the Bible is not a history book.


If NOT (I wonder if you) will you also consider the recognized, established historical and archaeological records as “FANTASY” since they confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible?


Unlike the believer I do not ignore evidence, though I warn I am extremely skeptical of anyone claiming to be a "biblical" archeologist as their religious bias makes it more likely they will use deception to further their own beliefs.


a further PROOF that the Bible as the Word of God is Historically Accurate.


Not at all. Not even in the slightest regard. The movie Titanic had some historical accuracy but we wouldn't accept it as fact even though some of what goes on in the movie DID happen that way. I take you back to the Odyssey. Troy existed and the Trojan war probably took place are we to believe that Poseidon and Athena and Apollo are real because of that? NO.


I'll await an answer from any critics to disprove that the Bible Is the Word of God.


I've already done that by pointing out the inconsistency of the Biblical God, how he can commit horrific sins that any man would be deemed EVIL for and yet still be called merciful. The story of the Egyptian firstborn alone proves beyond doubt that the Bible is not the perfect word of a loving perfect God and if that weren't enough the laughable origin story in which men are made from dirt and women from ribs as part of a week long magical incantation (not to mention the talking snake). Sorry but the Bible has lost and miserably at that.


What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family.


What about the parts where the Israelites are God's chosen people and God repeatedly sends them out to slaughter entire groups of people? Sometimes they killed children and took virgin slaves. Clearly your statement is FAR from what the Bible teaches.

Fail.


When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking – 100% accurate.


The Bible fails from page one stating that the Earth existed before the sun and even saying that God separated one expanse of waters from another (a direct reference to the belief in a firmament and geocentric Universe). Not to mention talking snakes, unicorns, dragons, giants, magical fruit that imparts knowledge and a myriad of other fictional and scientifically inaccurate things. Might as well be saying Tolkien’s writings are scientifically accurate.

Fail.


They willingly admitted and revealed their faults.


In what way does the fact that its authors were total screw ups help your case? Besides the fact that Moses most certainly did NOT write the books attributed to him the idea that the writers were sinful just hurts your case as they are then flawed enough to screw up while writing the Bible.

Fail.


There are scores of long-range prophecies in the Bible that have been fulfilled.


Biblical prophecies fail on every level. They are vague and open to wildly different interpretations and many of them aren't even prophecies and are taken out of context and used as prophecy by modern apologists and zealots. Fail.


he Bible’s teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man.


The Bible's Teachings are disgusting to even a primitive mind. Forcing a rape victim to marry her attacker? Taking virgin slaves (taking slaves at all). Beating disobedient children (or killing them in some passages). Animal sacrifice specifying where to sprinkle blood and what to do with organs. Prohibition on freedom of religion and freedom of speech (blasphemy and the first commandment). People getting cursed to a pit of eternal hellfire for lying, being a magician, being a coward (revelation 21:8). Jesus does make things a little better with his philosophy but even he says not a letter will fall from the "Law".

Fail.


Based on just the above Truths, there's no other book in existence that can compare to it or even match it.


Except that what you just said wasn't true in the slightest. There are lots of books better than the Bible, though certainly the Bible is an interesting set of fables and myths there are many others like it.

The Bible fails to be the word of God and it does so spectacularly.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 14-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Kap, interesting way of asking a question - you ask for an example of biblical events and yet you say “DON'T paste a list of real places in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.” and “DON'T paste a list of real people in the bible - that does NOT prove events occured.”
“The issue is the EVENTS in the bible - they did NOT occur.”
By your own rule how can one prove that a Bible EVENT occurred if you don’t even allow the Bible to be quoted?


Dishonest nonsense.
Does your cult allow you to LIE ?

YOU claimed the "accounts of the Bible" have been proved true "time and time again".

I asked you for evidence.
YOU keep quoting NAMES instead.

23 pages in, and all you can do is quote NAMES.

Time and Time again you FAILE to provide any evidence for EVENTS.

I NEVER said you can't quote the Bible.
That is a bald-faced lie.

I asked you to stop quoting NAMES as if they prove EVENTS.

You are totally incapable of understanding the difference.




Originally posted by edmc^2
I can't help but ask, is your position/belief so weak and unfounded that you have to include a “NO Bible qoute” rule in order to fortify your claims? What's the point of this thread then?


I did NO SUCH THING.
You just LIED through your teeth.

I told you to stop quoting NAMES as if they prove EVENTS.

But you, unable to come up with any evidence for EVENTS, are now reduced to lieing about what I claimed.

Pathetic.




Originally posted by edmc^2
Because according to an article by Alan Millard in Biblical Archaeology Review (May/June 1985), in 1854 an inscription was unearthed in Iraq containing a prayer for the long life and good health of Nabonidus and his eldest son. The name of this son? Belshazzar! So there was a Belshazzar in Babylon! Since 1854, many other inscriptions have been found to confirm this.


Another NAME argument !
But NO evidence for EVENTS !
You FAILED again.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Undeterred by their obvious humiliation, however, your fellow critics asserted that the writer of Daniel was mistaken in using the expression “Belshazzar the king.” Their defense - none of those inscriptions call Belshazzar king. They refer to him as the king’s son or as crown prince.
Since my Bible accurately identify him as the King of Babylon (Dan 5:1)


Wrong again.
Belshazzar was NOT a King.
The Bible got it WRONG.

YOUR OWN post says EXACTLY that :
"none of those inscriptions call Belshazzar king. They refer to him as the king’s son or as crown prince."

NONE of the inscriptions call him King !
History says that Belshazzar was NOT a King !

But YOU say the "Bible accurately calls him King" ignoring the facts of history and archeology which say he was NOT KING !

The facts are the exact OPPOSITE of what you claimed.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Do you agree with my Bible or with your fellow critics?


I agree with the FACTS of history and archeology.
Which says Belhazzar weas NOT King.




Originally posted by edmc^2
Btw, according to R. P. Dougherty, in his work Nabonidus and Belshazzar he said the following : “The Scriptural account may be interpreted as excelling because it employs the name Belshazzar.”(p. 200)


See?
Another CLAIM about a NAME !
NO evidence for an Bible EVENT being correct.
None.



Originally posted by edmc^2
But if you agree that my Bible is correct then the following EVENT must be TRUE – 100% historically accurate.


So,
IF YOU BELIEVE the Bible,
you'll believe the Bible stories?

THAT'S your EVIDENCE?
Hahahahahahahah....

So,
your evidence is a STORY about King Belshazzar from Daniel.

But -
history and archeology says :
Daniel was forged in the 160s BC
Daniel get it all WRONG about Belshazzar.


You completely failed.


Kap



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
Surely, the reference in the book of Daniel to “Belshazzar the king” is strong evidence that the book was in truth written by someone who lived in Babylon in the sixth century B.C.E. - a further PROOF that the Bible as the Word of God is Historically Accurate. Don't you agree?


Are you serious?

Daniel was forged in the 160s,
he got it completely WRONG about Belshazzar who was NEVER King.



Here are just some (more) historical events that my Bible says are historically accurate: written in stone.


Originally posted by edmc^2
Shishak’s Victory (1 Ki. 14:25-28; 2 Chron. 12:1-12).


Pfft.
Archeologists dont all agree WHO Sheshonq even was !



Originally posted by edmc^2
The Moabite Stone. ((2 Ki. 1:1; 3:4, 5)


Yes, Omri was a real Isreali king who did exist.




Originally posted by edmc^2
King Sennacherib’s Prism. (2 Ki. 18:13–19:37; 2 Chron. 32:1-22; Isa. 35:1–37:38)


The Bible tells a completelt different story - that they all got HEMARHOIDS !
Does history confirm the event that Sennacheribs' men all left with HEMARHOIDS?




Originally posted by edmc^2
The Cyrus Cylinder. (Isa. 44:28; 45:1; 2 Chron. 36:23.)


By 6th century, some Bible events are true, yes.




Originally posted by edmc^2
Sargon's conquest of Samaria (2 Kings 17:6 )


Maybe, no name is given.




Originally posted by edmc^2
Do you believed your fellow critics that these (historical/biblical) events did not occur also or as you put it are “FANTASY”? If so please prove it? It's easy to say they did not occur – disproving them is a different story.


Fantastic.
You actually found a couple of events in the Bible which actually occured !

I wonder why what's his name could not come up with a single one !




Originally posted by edmc^2
And in addition how and where did the Bible writers got their information from with great detail and specificity – 100% historically accurate if they are just FANTASY?


Whoa !
Suddenly you are pretending that a COUPLE of events proves the WHOLE thing true !

The Bible gets MANY MANY things wrong - I see you jusy ignored those examples in your faithful preaching.

Like all apologists do.
Eden, Babel, Flood, Exodus, Conquest etc. - did NOT occur.

The Bible got it totally wrong about Belshazzar - will you admit that ?
I doubt it.



Originally posted by edmc^2
I'll await an answer from any critics to disprove that the Bible Is the Word of God.


There are plenty of examples up thread.
You ignored them all.



Originally posted by edmc^2
Note – these are just few events, if we also consider just a couple more places and persons named in the Bible, the strand of truth is reliably strong.


Hahahaha !
So, some NAMES and PLACES prove the fantasy events are real !?

What a joke.
It never ends...


Kap



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Gday all,

Wow :
I am still gob-smakced at this :



Originally posted by edmc^2
Undeterred by their obvious humiliation, however, your fellow critics asserted that the writer of Daniel was mistaken in using the expression “Belshazzar the king.” Their defense - none of those inscriptions call Belshazzar king. They refer to him as the king’s son or as crown prince.


Look at that. Just LOOK at it !

So, believers claim the Bible is right about Belshazzar,
but sceptics don't - and all the sceptics have as evidence is ancient inscriptions which ALL say he was prince, NOT King.

Got that?
The sceptics only have actual ancient inscriptions to support their view.

But BELIEVERS have the Bible !
Which does NOT match what the inscriptions say !!!


But edmc^2 actually claims :


Originally posted by edmc^2
Since my Bible accurately identify him as the King of Babylon (Dan 5:1)


What?
Where is the ACCURACY ?

History and archeology all agree Belshazzar was NOT a King.
But incredibly you say the Bible accurately identifies him as King?
And you use this as evidence that the Bible is supported by history?

So, an example of a forged Bible being WRONG about someone is your best case of an Biblical account supported by history/archeology.



I call Poe.
Can't imagine what took me so long.


Kap



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Kapyong
 


First off, nice to finally converse with you Kapyong.
Now you said:

So,
your evidence is a STORY about King Belshazzar from Daniel.

NONE of the inscriptions call him King !
History says that Belshazzar was NOT a King !
Where is the ACCURACY ?


To use your own statement:


History and archeology all agree Belshazzar was NOT a King.


First off, thank you very much Kapyong for your confirmation. That there is INDEED such a person NAMED “BELSHAZZAR” ruling in Babylon – where before any discovery was ever made, he only existed in the Bible. Where CRITICS were trashing the Bible only to be humiliated later with no defense but accept the truth. Now that we have A SOLID CONFIRMATION of the HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE, what does this us tell about the Book Daniel?

Well, if he is CORRECT about the existence of such a person named “BELSHAZZAR”, can he also be CORRECT in identifying him as “King of Babylon” during his reign?

What does the evidence tell us? So far only die hard Bible critics are the ones shouting Fail! Fail! without any evidence to offer – but only their opinions.

So Kapyong, do you think the following archeological and historical evidence describing Belshazzar as a person with "Kingly Power" or as a “King” a LIE?

If so please prove it! And please may I suggest that you think twice about ridiculing the historians and archeologist who conducted these studies for it only makes your position weak.

Here's my research note:

In 1924 publication was made of the decipherment of an ancient cuneiform text described as the “Verse Account of Nabonidus,” and through it valuable information was brought to light clearly corroborating Belshazzar’s kingly position at Babylon and explaining the manner of his becoming coregent with Nabonidus. Concerning Nabonidus’ conquest of Tema in his third year of rule, a portion of the text says: “He entrusted the ‘Camp’ to his oldest (son), the firstborn [Belshazzar], the troops everywhere in the country he ordered under his (command). He let (everything) go, entrusted the kingship to him and, himself, he [Nabonidus] started out for a long journey, the (military) forces of Akkad marching with him; he turned towards Tema (deep) in the west.” (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, edited by J. Pritchard, 1974, p. 313)

(Sample source: www.livius.org...)

Did you notice that? “entrusted the kingship to him” – any idea what this means, well in the common vernacular “he is the man of the house” – acting as a “king”.

Now if you Kapyong was standing in front of “Belshazzar” in his grand palace and addressed him as “Prince” instead of “King” what do you think he will do to you? Thus Daniel addressed him properly as “King”!

As such Belshazzar definitely exercised royal authority from Nabonidus’ third year on, and this event likely corresponds with Daniel’s reference to “the first year of Belshazzar the king of Babylon.”—Da 7:1. (Bible accuracy at its finest!)

Again, in another document, the Nabonidus Chronicle, a statement is found with regard to Nabonidus’ seventh, ninth, tenth, and eleventh regnal years. It reads:

The king (was) in Tema (while) the prince, the officers, and his army (were) in Akkad [Babylonia].” (Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, by A. Grayson, 1975, p. 108)

What does this statement tell us? Apparently Nabonidus spent much of his reign away from Babylon, and while not relinquishing his position as supreme ruler, he entrusted administrative authority to his son Belshazzar to act during his absence. This is evident from a number of texts recovered from the ancient archives proving that Belshazzar exercised royal prerogatives, that he issued orders and commands. Matters handled by Belshazzar in certain documents and orders were those that would normally have been handled by Nabonidus, as supreme ruler, had he been present. However, Belshazzar remained only second ruler of the empire, and thus he could offer to make Daniel only “the third one in the kingdom.”—Da 5:16.

So please prove these findings wrong!

I hope you will not say Belshazzar was not Nabonidus’ son – or else you will be in deep dodo.

Btw, will you put your credentials against the people that I used as official sources? Will you consider them liars also since I used their findings as a source of Bible historical archeological accuracy? If so, in what manner do you consider yourself an expert if you don’t’ recognized their works. I’m no expert, just a humble bible student, but you are quite fond of shooting the messenger instead of the message – but hey, whatever tickles your fancy.

Here’s what you said:


See?
Another CLAIM about a NAME !
NO evidence for an Bible EVENT being correct.
None


If you can’t disprove these facts, what about the rest? Need I show you more?

As for your statement below – since you are an expert, what makes you believe/say/declare that:


Daniel was forged in the 160s BC

Please provide evidence!

Thanks,
Edmc^2

Ps.

But you, unable to come up with any evidence for EVENTS, are now reduced to lieing about what I claimed.


Just looking for some clarification from you, as you know I’m no expert and would like to know if you talking about “Bible names or Bible source names - i.e archeologist / historians.




[edit on 15-6-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Titen - you have a long list so I'll just reply one at a time so as not to ovewhelm you.

you said:


Show that it is possible to fit all the species of the Earth on a wooden boat of the same size as Noah's.


Here’s are the facts:

First off Noah’s Ark is not a BOAT but was a rectangular chestlike vessel having square corners and flat bottom. It’s main function was to float not to sail. From an engineering standpoint the shape (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high) is very stable and cannot be easily capsized and according to calculations it can contain about one third more storage space than ships of conventional design.

In modern calculation the ark measured around 133.5 m by 22.3 m by 13.4 m (437 ft 6 in. × 72 ft 11 in. × 43 ft 9 in.), less than half the length of the ocean liner Queen Elizabeth 2.

BTW, this proportion of length to width (6 to 1) is used by modern naval architects.

Volume:

The ark approximately 40,000 cu m (1,400,000 cu ft) in gross volume. It is estimated that such a vessel would have a displacement nearly equal to that of the mighty 269-m (883 ft) Titanic of this 20th century. No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size. Internally strengthened by adding two floors, the three decks thus provided gave a total of about 8,900 sq m (96,000 sq ft) of space.

If you understand this volumetric size it means that the Ark has MORE THAN ENOUGH CAPACITY TO FIT “all the species of the earth”! (hey you can probably add an Olympic size pool in there). Of course dinos were not included as they were long gone.

How was this done?

Let’s take a look at the passenger manifest – it’s quite impressive!

Besides Noah, his wife, his three sons, and their wives, living creatures “of every sort of flesh, two of each,” were to be taken aboard. “Male and female they will be. Of the flying creatures according to their kinds and of the domestic animals according to their kinds, of all moving animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive.” Of the clean beasts and fowls, seven of each kind were to be taken. A great quantity and variety of food for all these creatures, to last for more than a year, also had to be stowed away.—Ge 6:18-21; 7:2, 3.

Did you get that? Did you get the KEY word in unlocking this puzzle?
The “KINDS” of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.”
Titen, how many ‘KINDS’ of Species do you think exist today? 100K, 500K or >1.3M according to The Encyclopedia Americana?(1977, Vol. 1, pp. 859-873).

Well Bible critics will usually go with >1.3M to prove their claim that there’s no way on earth for such a large quantity of species to “fit…on a wooden boat of the same size as Noah's.”

It is either by pure ignorance or pure laziness these statements are made.

Why? Because all of the clues are all in there – all we need to do is pay attention to details and right attitude.

Consider this:

It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah/Yahweh were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds” of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds” were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds” following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

In addition over 60 percent of these are insects. Breaking these figures down further, of the 24,000 amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, 10,000 are birds, 9,000 are reptiles and amphibians, many of which could have survived outside the ark, and only 5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark. Other researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69) So, even if estimates are based on these expanded figures, the ark could easily have accommodated a pair of all these animals.

Question:

Do you still DOUBT the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE with respect to Noah’s Ark containing the all the species “according to their kinds”?

Or will you KaPoe this too?

thanks,
edmc



[edit on 15-6-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



No cargo vessel of ancient times even slightly resembled the ark in its colossal size.


Seeing as how the ark has never been proven to exist outside of Biblical and Sumerian myth (Epic of Gilgamesh account) this statement really doesn't have a point.


It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds”—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind” established by Jehovah/Yahweh were not and could not be crossed.


You've pulled this quite blindly out of your backside. The Bible says nothing about cow kinds and horse kinds. And what exactly would have counted as a horse kind? Would giraffes fit into that category? And if young earth creationists are to be taken seriously WHERE WOULD THE DINOSAURS HAVE BEEN? 1.3 Million is a very CONSERVATIVE estimate with most scientists believing the number of undiscovered species far out weighs the number found and identified. The idea that these could all be housed and fed on a boat of that size for an extended period is absurd.

Surely you don't think cows and animals which were not cows but were the same "kind" (whatever the heck that means) actually interbred to create the bio-diversity we have today (which would be evolution).


With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds” of mammals, 74 “kinds” of birds, and 10 “kinds” of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today.


As you state there are 10,000 species of birds, therefore there are more than 74 kinds of birds unless you're suggesting that there were a great many FEWER species before the Flood in which case you are advocating they evolved AFTER the flood into the vast array of life we see before us today. If the writers of the Bible had any understanding of the science involved don't you think they would have gone into more detail? Instead you are now speculating wildly to support a story that is implausible and has been disproved by geology and has no evidence of any kind backing it up.


5,000 are mammals, including whales and porpoises, which would have also remained outside the ark


But doesn't the Bible say something about taking on board all the animals that breathe through their nostrils. Whales do that, they have a blowhole which they breathe through. Oops the Bible made a mistake.


Do you still DOUBT the ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE with respect to Noah’s Ark containing the all the species “according to their kinds”?


Yup, I sure do. Bogus ballpark figures about "kinds" do not sway me I assure you. Not to mention the fact that the whole of geology is rife with proof that a Global flood did not take place as is the lack of enough water on and in the Earth to cause a flood. And the fact that slaughtering everything but Noah and his menageries violates the ten commandments and is a genocidal horrific act killing millions of innocent children (even if, as the Bible says, the adults were evil) and animals.

And what about the plants? The Bible doesn't say much about them. Surely all plant life would be drowned in a massive flood, are we to believe Noah brought on seed from every plant on the planet? The whole thing is absurd and its without even an ounce of archeological or geological evidence to back it up. You can go ahead and believe it on faith if you want but don't try to pass it off as if its even remotely plausible in the real world.

Here's a great video series on disproving Noah's flood




where before any discovery was ever made, he only existed in the Bible. Where CRITICS were trashing the Bible only to be humiliated later with no defense but accept the truth. Now that we have A SOLID CONFIRMATION of the HISTORICAL ACCURACY OF THE BIBLE?


Umm.. No. Proving that one person in the Bible is actually real does nothing for confirming the historical accuracy in the Bible. No more than London being real makes Harry Potter historically accurate or Troy being real makes the Iliad historically accurate.

[edit on 15-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
My apologies Titen, don't mean to insult your intelligence but I'm still trying to understand what you are saying here:


Surely you don't think cows and animals which were not cows but were the same "kind"


All I said was "...the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. "

But you came up with "cows and animals which were not cows but were the same "kind"...

As for the word "kind" it's self explenatory - meaning type, you know the cow kind or the horse kind and I know that a cow is an animal not a plant.

So what are really trying to say here?
"cows and animals which were not cows but were the same "kind" (whatever the heck that means)...

which I think got you confused - that is you confused yourself

As for the number of species "kinds", all I said was: "researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69)"

There might more there might be less - what do you think? I'll let you figure that out.

As for your statement:


But doesn't the Bible say something about taking on board all the animals that breathe through their nostrils. Whales do that, they have a blowhole which they breathe through. Oops the Bible made a mistake.


I dunno, last time I check "Whales" live on water - and will occasionaly surface to take in air. Are you saying that they should walked to the ark? That's fantastic if it happened!

As for

Global flood did not take place as is the lack of enough water on and in the Earth to cause a flood


Lets see - Seawater covers 71% of the earth surface, where would be the rest of the water come from? Or where did they go?

I'll give you a hint - what would happen if all the glaciers and ice caps on both poles melt, any idea how high will the water be?


BTW,
You can easily calculate how many animals you can fit in the ark by volume.

thanks,
edmc^2



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


I'm confused about the word Kind because it doesn't help you. Noah would need one of every species on the ark, reducing them to kinds means what exactly? Meaning he only took a few of every kind of animal? From this point on I will not use the word kind as it is meaningless, I will use the word species.



As for the number of species "kinds", all I said was: "researchers estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats. (The Deluge Story in Stone, by B. C. Nelson, 1949, p. 156; The Flood in the Light of the Bible, Geology, and Archaeology, by A. M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69)"


You've got to be joking


You're source for the number of species larger than sheep is a book written in 1949 and one in 1957 both of which have apparent religious bias from the title and are out of date by half a century




I dunno, last time I check "Whales" live on water


Last I checked some species of turtles and insects live in and on the water too but the turtles still breathe through their nostrils. Genesis 7:22 says everything that breathed through its nostrils DIED, WHALES breathe through nostrils. Of course scientifically illiterate primitives couldn't have known that but IF the Bible was inspired by God they could have included some scientific detail. As it is there's no mention of whales because most ancients believed whales were FISH.



I'll give you a hint - what would happen if all the glaciers and ice caps on both poles melt, any idea how high will the water be?


Not even close to high enough to cover all the land on Earth. You can look all this stuff up online, if you're willing to use actual science and actual evidence in favor of religiously biased BS.

The Biblical Flood has been debunked time and time and time and time again, pretty much everything about geology we know disproves the Global Flood (and disproves the young Earth that many Bible believers support).



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 

back on the...



I'm confused about the word Kind because it doesn't help you. Noah would need one of every species on the ark, reducing them to kinds means what exactly? Meaning he only took a few of every kind of animal? From this point on I will not use the word kind as it is meaningless, I will use the word species.


I’m not surprised because it’s been a problem in the evolution community on how to properly define this. And as it turns out there’s no clear solution in sight. If you ask me they should have just left it as it was originally defined – Kind which is commonly understood by unsophisticated lay people like me as: divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. Where the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

Note this statement that you can find even in Wikipedea:

en.wikipedia.org...

“The species problem is a mixture of difficult, related questions that often come up when biologists identify species and when they define the word "species".

As for what you said next:


You've got to be joking

You’re source for the number of species larger than sheep is a book written in 1949 and one in 1957 both of which have apparent religious bias from the title and are out of date by half a century.


Titen – I’m not sure how or why you find this funny, a joke. Are you implying that just because the source is a little bit old (but not as old as other sources) that the information is useless? Or that the people who conducted the research believed in God (which I'm not quite sure) that somehow they are disqualified? Is that how you judge people?

May I ask please, do you also have same the view about Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Einstein and other great men of science just because they somehow believe in a divine being? I hope not because it only makes your position weak.

Speaking of weak position, have you ever heard this maxim – “Trust but verify”? Well I do, in fact some of the sources that I used in researching a subject are from people who are don’t believe in God.

Also, I noticed this about critics – they usually will shoot the messenger instead of the message w/c most of the time backfires and only makes their position like what I said - weak.

So may I ask you this again, what did you find funny about the researchers findings?

Were they wrong or somehow lied when they:

“estimate that there are only about 290 species of land mammals larger than sheep and about 1,360 smaller than rats.”

I would like to know if you can you prove them wrong or why you say I’m joking? I trust that their research are trustworthy upon verification.

Now next one is very typical. I’ve seen this tactic so many times. What am I talking about? Twisting of scriptures to support a weak agenda (I hope this is not intentional on your part).

Let me show you. I will bold out the culprit passage to avoid any confusion:

You said:


…Genesis 7:22 says everything that breathed through its nostrils DIED, WHALES breathe through nostrils. Of course scientifically illiterate primitives couldn't have known that but IF the Bible was inspired by God they could have included some scientific detail. As it is there's no mention of whales because most ancients believed whales were FISH.


Let's compare it with the actual Bible passage:

“Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” (NWT)

So “Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land.” (NLT)

Not as you said: everything that breathed through its nostrils DIED

This leads me to believe that even though you have knowledge of the Bible it is not according to ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE.

May I suggest that you do some more Bible research?

As for what you said below – been there done that.


Not even close to high enough to cover all the land on Earth. You can look all this stuff up online, if you're willing to use actual science and actual evidence in favor of religiously biased BS. ).


Let me ask you this simple scientific fact - on the subject of how mountains and lands are formed.

Are the elevation of lands and mountains or depths of sea/ocean basins higher or lower back then – thousand and thousands years ago? Or was there no change at all, no tectonic plate movement.

Were the Himalayas/ns higher today than 4350 years ago? By how much – any idea what the rate of movement (subduction/uplift) was?

What do you think?

Here's another question for you – where did the glaciers and ice caps came from – that is, where did the vast amount of water locked in the glaciers and ice caps came from? Any idea.

The Bible give's us a clear answer which agrees with science!


Would you like to know?

As for what you said below:


The Biblical Flood has been debunked time and time and time and time again, pretty much everything about geology we know disproves the Global Flood (and disproves the young Earth that many Bible believers support).


On the contrary – because of predetermined ideas and close mind, most critics will tend to missed the evidence or will intentionally ignored them.

For example – consider the power of a moving body of water. I don't need to explain this because the effects are obvious.


cont...

[edit on 22-6-2010 by edmc^2]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
...
Here's just one report of the many incident related to flash floods:

A publication of the United States Department of Agriculture says of certain floods in the state of Utah: “[They] destroyed houses . . . and deposited debris to a depth of several feet, including boulders of all sizes up to 20 tons in weight. Some larger boulders were moved about 1000 feet from the canyon’s mouth down a 4° gradient. Several of these weigh from 75 to 100 tons each, and two, previously mentioned, weigh 150 and 210 tons respectively.”

Will you say that this event is impossible to occur? I find it to be real.

Should we expect the same thing happened all over the world if a global deluge occurred? Is there any evidence?

Note these findings from the book The Flood:
“Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock, for example, which can be traced to Scandinavia, are scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany. Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons. The same phenomenon is found here in America in the New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. . . . In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.”

Can you explain how these rocks got transported from far flung places?
I hope you are not one of those “a meteor did it” skeptics, because the physics and mathematics will not allow for such an event to happen – unless you believe in miracles since the Noachian Flood is impossible to have had happened to you!
Others also say the “glaciers did it” – but it also has problems as some of these boulders are located in warm areas of the planet.
Can you please debunk these facts with proofs?
What about fossils – bones of dead animals?
Contrary to what was shown in the youtube vid you provided – it is incomplete.

Note what the book Target: Earth said with regards to the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.”

Do you think the researchers just made the evidence up?

If so can you answer these findings also,the book Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries asks:
“What made rabbits run into the same cave as coyotes? And an antelope with a wolverine and a grizzly? Bones of the mastodon were found, also a few reptiles . . . The whole mass of bones was covered and preserved by a flood deposit of gravel and rocks.”

Do you have any logical explanation? I do – a rising flood of water was chasing them.
What about this, do you think it's just coincidence?
Note:
“There is one significant fact that is always connected with every dinosaur fossil and every mammoth fossil, and that is that every fossil is almost invariably dug out of water-laid sedimentary rock. Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.”
Is there any truth to what they said? Only someone who refuses to see the evidence will treat this just like the Bible as a “FANTASY”.

I have more to provide but I think – these are good for now.

So if “The Biblical Flood has been debunked time and time and time and time again” then you should be able to explain these findings logically and scientifically. Please provide proof not just opinions.

Note: the sedimentary formation in the youtube video you've provided are true but they only explain natural occurrences not cataclysmic events such as the ones found quoted above. As for the bones shown in the vid, the picture incomplete – that is again, it confirms natural occurrences not the cataclysmic events such as the ones found quoted above.

But before I forget, the greatest proof of all that a Global Deluge occurred is no other than the Lord Jesus Christ!

Here's what he said: “For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the pres-ence of the Son of man will be.”—Matt. 24:37-39.

Q: If the Great Flood occurred what does it mean to you?

It underscores God’s faithfulness in fulfilling what he promises to do, and his loving interest in mankind by providing both advance warning and a way to escape future events.(1 Pet. 3:20) It is also a further evidence that the Bible, the Word of God is 100% historically accurate!

btw, I can't help but notice this (and I don't' fault you on this as the “churches” are the ones responsible for spreading it)

you said:

People getting cursed to a pit of eternal hellfire for lying, being a magician, being a coward (revelation 21:8).


The Bible does not teach that such a literal placed called “eternal hellfire” exist– actually what it said is “the lake that burns with fire and sulfur” which is symbolic, that is, it simply means – “second death” - no resurrection - and no, people are not as you say ‘curse’ or as some say ‘tortured’.

hint – compare this with the actual place called Gehena or Gehinom.

Check these scriptures if you want to know:

Jehovah God did not create such a place; it didn’t even come up in his heart - Jer. 7:31,
Man is a soul – Gen 2:7, since man is a soul thus the soul (man) dies Ezek. 18:4.
If one sins he will simply die (not be tortured) – Rom 6:23 Thus no such thing as an ‘immortal soul’ but will await resurrection -John 5:28, 29.
Here's where it came from: more available on line.

In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the “nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581)

Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom’s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960,...

t,
edmc^2



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 





Are you implying that just because the source is a little bit old


Are you implying that the age of a potential scientific source is not a factor? Are you suggesting that knowledge does not grow and new information is not learned? 1957 was more than a LITTLE BIT old when we're dealing with science. The only time an idea survives that long in science is if it is useful in explaining something. For instance we still use Newton's work because it still serves a function in our understanding of the world but other ideas, such as Continental Drift and the Steady State Universe get left behind or folded into new ideas (Continental drift is now part of Plate Tectonics).




Or that the people who conducted the research believed in God (which I'm not quite sure) that somehow they are disqualified?


No, I don't think that scientists who believe in God are automatically disqualified BUT I do think they are more likely to view the evidence with a religious bias or even to be deceptive in order to bend the evidence to support their view. Now most religious scientists DO NOT do this, most leave God and their beliefs out of their research. Usually when you get things like Flood Science and Creation Science the researchers start out with a biased conclusion and then try to stretch the evidence to fit it. Is this the case with your source, I don't know but I am skeptical of it because

1) It is old
2) It very well might have the aforementioned bias



So may I ask you this again, what did you find funny about the researchers findings?


That they support an unverified position for which there is no evidence. That they support the conclusion there was a global flood, or might have been one, despite the fact it is a proven scientific impossibility and simple geology proves the Flood story wrong on a daily basis.




“Everything in which the breath of the force of life was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died.” (NWT)

So “Everything died that breathed and lived on dry land.” (NLT)


I suppose its arguable to say that the nostrils part and the one dry land part go together but look at the sentence structure in most translations. They are two separate thoughts separated by a comma. Fair enough though, I'll drop that verse as part of my argument.




The Bible give's us a clear answer which agrees with science!




The Flood Story says nothing about:

Plate Tectonics, The Formation of mountains, ice caps, glaciers let alone the stratification we see all around us proving that layers of sediment were not laid down in a massive flood but appear gradually. In fact the only mountain mentioned in the flood story is the one they land on at the end, Mount Ararat.

The Himalayas are currently growing at about 5 millimeters per year. I did a bit of searching but couldn't find a figure of growth for exactly 4350 years ago, but you know since the Bible is just SO scientifically accurate I'm sure it contains all that information on subduction rates and how mountains form.. O wait, no it doesn't.

Geology of the Himalaya



because of predetermined ideas and close mind


Guess what opens a closed mind - EVIDENCE. I have yet to see any in support of a Global Flood and I've seen mountains of evidence against one.



Will you say that this event is impossible to occur? I find it to be real.


Flash Floods do exist... and that's probably what the Flood story is describing, a local, regional flood that was catastrophic enough to be woven into legend and later be described as encompassing the entire world.



Can you explain how these rocks got transported from far flung places?


Am I the one making the positive claim that the Flood did indeed happen? Where does the Bible mention these rocks. Oh that's right, it doesn't.

I'm not a geologist and my guess is neither are the geniuses who came up with The Flood book you quoted. I did manage to dig up an article on Scandinavian geology but unfortunately it requires a subscription to a geoscience publication. link

They bring up elevation, the crust the rocks were sitting on can change in elevation lifting the blocks up as plates collide and mountains form. Rising and falling elevations, tectonic collisions, ordinary floods, all could help explain how these rocks got where they are.



the Noachian Flood is impossible to have had happened to you!


By me, but you're also forgetting every geologist on the planet.




but it also has problems as some of these boulders are located in warm areas of the planet.


You do understand that the Continents were not always in their current positions right? And you do also understand that the Earth has undergone multiple ice ages where the glaciers extended down pretty far.

Timeline of Glaciation



Do you have any logical explanation? I do – a rising flood of water was chasing them.


Very well then but the fact that flood waters were chasing those animals proves there was a flood IN THAT LOCATION. If there were a global flood would we not expect to find, at the same layer of stratification, the bones of every single type of animal native to any region? The layer would be constant all over the world and would prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a global flood did occur. What you are describing are isolated flash flood incidents in one location of the Earth. We do not see evidence for it everywhere.

The quote on fossils: Allow me to bang my head into the wall a few times to deal with the mind numbing stupidity of trying to say Dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time... Fossils only form in certain conditions, WE KNOW THAT. That has nothing to do with a Global Flood. If it did all the animals would be fossilized at the same level and 65 Million year old Dinosaur fossils would have the same decomposition level as something that died... what was it, ah yes 4350 years ago. So dinosaurs and all the other animals dying in the flood would have to be in the same layer.. we would find T-Rex at the same level as, say, a Raccoon fossil and they would both be datable to a few thousand years ago (4350 according to you).

What we see is completely different from what we'd expect to see if the Flood Story were true... and guess what, The Bible says nothing about fossils or dinosaurs in regards to the Flood. Its amazing that this story you claim to be scientifically accurate (and the Word of God) has zero confirmed scientific facts.



they only explain natural occurrences not cataclysmic events such as the ones found quoted above.


Wow... So flash floods aren't natural occurrences eh? Unless I'm reading this wrong you're assuming there is such a thing as a SUPERNATURAL occurrence. If there were a supernatural occurrences looking for proof of it in the natural world would be pointless. Science, by definition, can only weigh in on natural occurrences. A Flood would be a natural occurrence but what we see in the geologic record does not suggest a Global Flood 4350 years ago or at ANY TIME for that matter.



Q: If the Great Flood occurred what does it mean to you?


If the evidence actually did back up the idea of a Global Flood it would mean one of two things to me. Either the event was a natural occurrence unrelated to a deity OR an evil vengeful God decided to slaughter every living thing on the planet mercilessly rather than offer them any chance at repentance.



The Bible does not teach that such a literal placed called “eternal hellfire” exist– actually what it said is “the lake that burns with fire and sulfur” which is symbolic,


You interpret the Lake of Fire as symbolic but you interpret the Flood story literally? The Bible doesn't claim its symbolic, it talks about a Lake of Fire but never states whether its meant to be taken as a literal place of fiery torment for sinners or not. So you are putting something into the Bible which is not there, your interpretation of Hell which I know many Christians would disagree with you on.

I am aware of Gehenna but many Christians interpret this in the same way people have for centuries, as an ACTUAL literal place for sinners if they die without accepting Christ. The Bible is very vague as to what its actually talking about when it mentions Hell or the Lake of Fire.

If the book were truly perfect, truly penned by the pure inspiration of God without the flaws of the authors mind interfering there would be but one inspiration to come to - the correct one. What are there now some 38,000 Denominations?

I'm sorry but it just doesn't make sense, the logical inconsistencies and self-contradictions are too many and there's no evidence for the truly OUT THERE stuff that supposedly occurred.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:02 AM
link   


The Bible, Man's book or God's Word?


I don't know about anybody else, but I didn't know (they) back then, had the english language... and/or any other of today's language of the world.

Does it have in the "holy comic book", any pages in the bible having the words, "God wrote thease words in the bible?" No.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by gordonwest
 


The Bible does identify itself as God's Word though.

2nd Timothy 3:16-17 says all scripture is "God-Breathed".

The Bible doesn't need to actually make the claim in order to question it because the Believers are claiming it. The Bible speaks for itself and I think it resoundingly fails to be the Word of God as believers claim it is.



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


Eccl. 3:18 I said in my heart, “As for the sons of men, God tests them, so that they may see that they themselves are like animals. 3:19 For that which happens to the sons of men happens to animals. Even one thing happens to them. As the one dies, so the other dies. Yes, they have all one breath; and man has no advantage over the animals: for all is vanity.

It is what it is and we have not only witnessed it we have been a part of it. So has our Lord. He was as we are but he overcame and he healed, fed, and taught, they killed. Many follow a Pseudo-Jesus. He himself is the beast. That is why his name adds up to 616 like the bible states and it is why they bow down to his image the crucifix which is revealed by 666. The Lord told them not to do this but he did say they would rather worship the created things rather than the creator. When will we come to our senses?

Atheists are very smart but they have accepted Christian doctrines and interpreatations of the bible as if it is the truth. Wouldn't that make them Christians to? If you think God is wrong for allowing animals to die though he can raise them up again. How much more wrong are we for hurting and killing animals we can't bring back to life? It has been said it is better that a critter even a monkey suffers or even dies for medical technology sake because it has helped mankind. Are you that much better than a monkey? If you have that right what right do you have to judge something much greater than the difference between us and a monkey?



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join