Why I believe Creation is factually accurate – The Reality!

reply to post by daskakik


Congratulations!

They’ve just duplicated “life” from “pre-existing” life or should I say “modified life” from pre-existing life.

The man-made single cell “creature”, which is a modified version of one of the simplest bacteria on earth, proves that the technology works.

Now it would be amazing even a ‘miracle” if they can get these “mix[ture] of chemicals” – mix them together and “create” life from these non-living materials.

Also – without these brilliant scientists “mixing” these chemicals – will life create itself?

... I forgot sorry, “no need for a brilliant minds to do this because – life as we know is here already” (I always get this answer from evolutionists and atheists alike).

Also – who do you think these brilliant scientists/geneticists correspond to if they are indeed able to create life from non-living materials?

But his development has also triggered debate over the ethics of “playing god” and the dangers of the new technology could pose in terms of biological hazards and warfare.

Of course they don’t stand for nothing because to you, life just came to be by unguided process – evolutionists said it to be so it must true.

What say you? Makes sense or nonsense?

Again the truth is “Life can only come from Life” as the scriptures say:

“For with you is the source of life” (Psalm 36:9)

Ty,
edmc2

reply to post by edmc^2


Great post, just a few things you should check out yourself. Look up Kent Hovind on youtube on his seminars of Creation, dinosaurs, evolution etc. Well knowledgeble in this area.

Also remember our Creator has a Name, YHWH = Yahuwah and His Son is Yahuwshuwah. For more info check out messengerofthename on youtube for the name breakdown. And best teacher for other things Called2bholy on youtube. May Yahuwshuwah bless you!

reply to post by edmc^2

Again the truth is “Life can only come from Life”

Great example of god of the gaps...again

We have no clear evidence of that claim, scientists simply don't know...but at least they're humble enough to admit that instead of making up fairy tales that are often demonstrably wrong. Like the whole parting the waters to create the heavens and the earth hogwash

reply to post by edmc^2

No disagreement there - that's a fact according to statistics. But the subject is NOT religion but the Bible.

The graph is form the US, where most are Christian...who based their belief on...wait for it...waaaaaaaait for it....the BIBLE

Of course to atheists, evolutionists and non-believers it proves nothing of importance - no mystery in that one. But millions upon millions of people believe that even though the Bible was written thousands of years ago - it's teachings are very much applicable ESPECIALLY TODAY.

And that's a fact.

That's a laughable comment given that slavery and genocide is condoned in the bible. And before you say that's the old testament...you also believe in Genesis, which is also in the old testament. Of course now you're gonna say that was meant for the Jews only...but that means the Genesis account could be for Jews only too, and maybe god was just messing with them.

So i take it that YOU AGREE THEN that the Golden Rule is "very much applicable ESPECIALLY TODAY."

What does that have to do with the bible? It's not the origin of the golden rule, many independent civilizations all over the globe came to the same conclusion...many even before the bible mentioned anything regarding it.

The ethic of reciprocity was present in certain forms in the philosophies of ancient Babylon, Egypt, Persia, India, Greece, Judea, and China.

But who cares about facts, right?

Science has it's place in human society – but there are areas is which it's not able to satisfactorily address. But the Bible does – like the total elimination of death in the future.

A claim for which we have zero objective evidence...again, pure speculation

But since you don't believe in the Bible or for that matter Jesus Christ then I can understand why your hope lies ONLY in science (man-made).

Given that there's ZERO objective evidence of divine intervention, that's a rational position

Just because we're not (YET) able to explain something doesn't mean that it's impossible to occur or it didn't happened.

Yeah, but you don't walk around claiming pink unicorns exist, do you?

They don't have answers because they can't admit the obvious logical ANSWERS!

They don't have the answers because they haven't figured everything out yet. Doesn't mean you should just make stuff up or believe in stuff others made up just because it fits your blind belief...especially if it's demonstrably wrong like the Genesis account.

reply to post by edmc^2


My questions for you would be....


If your account is factually accurate:

why is there no physical evidence to support it?
why does your idea have no positive predictive power?
why are there mountain ranges of contradictory evidence?
why do contradicting theories have incredible predictive power?

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

 

Of course they don’t stand for nothing because to you, life just came to be by unguided process – evolutionists said it to be so it must true.

Actually the story says:

have managed to make a completely new “synthetic” life form from a mix of chemicals. They manufactured a new chromosome from artificial DNA in a test tube, then transferred it into an empty cell and watched it multiply – the very definition of being alive.

So they did use an empty cell but the DNA was synthesized in a test tube so the resulting life was unique.

What you and the evolutionists don't understand is that the most honest stand that I can take is that I don't know how life came about. That is the truth. I'm willing to bet that you and the evolutionists don't really know either. You may each have theories that have convinced you but I don't consider any of them proven fact.

What I don't like about your facts is that you take a simple fact and want to use that as basis to substantiate something that may not be true.

For example, Star Wars starts by saying "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away."

Fact one - the universe seems very old so a long time ago did exist therefore Star Wars is a true story.

Fact two - There are galaxies far far away just more proof that science proves that the original Star Wars and the Precuals for that matter are fact. Only those who choose not to see this truth can be blind to such obvious truths.

I have no problem with you feeling that the bible is truth. I just don't agree with your claim that its authenticity is proven by the facts you have shown here.

reply to post by daskakik

What you and the evolutionists don't understand is that the most honest stand that I can take is that I don't know how life came about.

The theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started. And scientists admit they don't know how it started, that's why there's several hypothesis and none is proven to the same extent as evolution

reply to post by MrXYZ


Sorry about that. I was just using evolutionists the way the creationists use it in general and the way it was used in the post I was responding to in particular.

Hi edmc--

I'm not quite sure where your confusion lay in my discussion so far: if you come across anything new, you can always google it I suppose so you can catch-up.

Also you really will have to check out the books I recommended, and then we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then, you seem hopelessly in the dark about most of what I am talking about, apparently !

See if you can find the time to check out Ancient Near Eastern Texts by Pritchard (the book is sometimes abbreviated in the literature as 'ANET' for short) - these are a compilation of archeological textual findings over the past 150 years or so that show massive amounts of base 'literary source material' that were discovered in ruins in the middle east written by ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal. and is a VERY constructive tool to understand the the kind of language and literary forms/content found in the (2) contradictory Creation Myths of the Jews found in texts like Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:25

ANET is also very useful for non-specialists like yourself and others on this threaddlet in exposing evidence (in your case, for the first time, apparently) ref: the formatiion of the pre-Israelite religious millieu as it existed in Cannan and the greater Levant from c. 2300 BCE through the Israelite invasions (c. 1100-1000 BCE) through the Monarchical period down to the Babylonian Exile (587 BCE) - with alarming implications for the source material of the 'Torah' (esp the Code of Hammurabi c. 1756 BCE) -- and even down to details such as the originally Syrian pre-Israelite Temple measurements of the goddess Astarte (which foreshadow the exact measurements of the so-called Tabernacle of Moses etc. by more than 1000 years !) and also ANET is a very useful read to examine all the preIsraelite sources for many other creation myths of the Jews (e.g. the Myth of Rahab and Lotan/Leviathan in the poetical sections of Elamite Job and also referred to in book of proto-Isaiah as well others found throughout Genesis in the mythological section e.g. chapters 1 through 11 (including the Flood Myth and the Tower of Babel myth etc.)

But before we get started on ancient Israelitish historical considerations (and your quote references show the most ignorant assumptions about how the cults of YHWH, Asherah, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon etc. evolved over time and came to influence all the variegated ancient Israelitish cults before the Exile) you will have to explain some of your blanket terms whicch you bandy about without so much as a second thought - it always helps to clarify your terms.

What, for examplee do you mean by 'the Bible' -- precisely -- do you mean 'The Hebrew Bibl'e - something that didn't even exist as a single text between two covers until after the council of Javneh in AD 90 -- a full 20 years after Rome ground Israel to powder in the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66- 72 CE)? You DID know, didn't you, that the Jews did not have a single book between two covers that 'defiled the hands' (i.e. was considered canonical/sacred) until long affter the execution for armed Sedition against Rome of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (BCE 12 to 36 CE) aka 'Iesous' and that the earliest Nazorean 'Palestinian Messianic' Jews (i.e. 'first Christians') quoted texts like I Henoch and Testaments of the 12 as 'scripture' ?


Or do you mean the 'Catholic Bible', with all those 'apocryphal' books such as I-IV Ezra and Macabbees and Ecclesiasticus (The Scrol of the Book of the Wisdom of Yeshua ben Sirach) and The Testament of Moses (aka Book of Jubilees?) thrown into the mix, whose 'old Testament' is NOT based on the Masoretic text used by Protestants and Jews to-day but based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which is a loose translation of one of the versions of the Greek LXX Septuaginta versions (contra the Hebrew consonantal text underlay to the Greek of the texts of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion)?

Or do you mean the 'Dead Sea Scrolls Bible' - a hotch potch of more than 800 Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic books which are more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text of today's Rabinnic Jews with on average more than 18% differences with the later Masoretic pointed text (i.e. by counting all the Hebrew consonants per column, exactly) whicch include sacred books like the Scroll of the Book of the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs being the sons of Yakkov andd the Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch to all the Sons of Light in the Last Days, i.e. I Henoch (both of which Coptic Christian churches in Egypt held to be 'canonical') - and from which R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Gk. Iesous) freely quoted in the 4 canonical Greek 'gospels'?

Or...do you mean the so-called 'Protestant Bible' whose 'Old Testment' is based on the late Masoretic pointed vowelled text of the Masoretes ('babylonian recension') from AD 960 and whose 'new Testament' (based on 5,446 Greek manuscripts, no two exactly alike) is not even included in the so-called "Hebew Bible" at all?

Or what 'Bible text' do you mean, exactly? Are you under the jejune impression that there is even a single text to be considered, even after all those Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts came to light since November of 1946?

Let's start there and work our way up, shall we ?

reply to post by Sigismundus

Hi edmc--

I'm not quite sure where your confusion lay in my discussion so far: if you come across anything new, you can always google it I suppose so you can catch-up.

I’m not confused – just tryin' to figure out how to respond properly to the voluminous data dump. Too many to respond to and it’s quite hard where to start – so I thought of a pivotal date to use as a reference point in time. Thus the Q about dates.

Next you said;

Also you really will have to check out the books I recommended, and then we can have an intelligent conversation. Until then, you seem hopelessly in the dark about most of what I am talking about, apparently !

See if you can find the time to check out Ancient Near Eastern Texts by Pritchard (the book is sometimes abbreviated in the literature as 'ANET' for short) - these are a compilation of archeological textual findings over the past 150 years or so that show massive amounts of base 'literary source material' that were discovered in ruins in the middle east written by ancient Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal. and is a VERY constructive tool to understand the the kind of language and literary forms/content found in the (2) contradictory Creation Myths of the Jews found in texts like Genesis 1:1 - 2:4a and 2:4b to 4:25

I guess you have me at an advantage since you’ve already gone through the books you’ve recommended. ‘Just browsing through them though I can say that they require a GREAT deal of time (to really get the authors point of view).

That is – The Biblical Creation is a Myth because it’s based on existing myths taken from “Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal”. But after skimming through some pages I think there's no need to go for the entire book(s) for I already know the jest of these publications. Although I must admit there's something to learn in them - whether it's a useful information or not it's up to the reader.

next you said:

ANET is also very useful for non-specialists like yourself and others on this threaddlet in exposing evidence (in your case, for the first time, apparently) ref: the formatiion of the pre-Israelite religious millieu as it existed in Cannan and the greater Levant from c. 2300 BCE through the Israelite invasions (c. 1100-1000 BCE) through the Monarchical period down to the Babylonian Exile (587 BCE) - with alarming implications for the source material of the 'Torah' (esp the Code of Hammurabi c. 1756 BCE) -- and even down to details such as the originally Syrian pre-Israelite Temple measurements of the goddess Astarte (which foreshadow the exact measurements of the so-called Tabernacle of Moses etc. by more than 1000 years !) and also ANET is a very useful read to examine all the preIsraelite sources for many other creation myths of the Jews (e.g. the Myth of Rahab and Lotan/Leviathan in the poetical sections of Elamite Job and also referred to in book of proto-Isaiah as well others found throughout Genesis in the mythological section e.g. chapters 1 through 11 (including the Flood Myth and the Tower of Babel myth etc.)

But before we get started on ancient Israelitish historical considerations (and your quote references show the most ignorant assumptions about how the cults of YHWH, Asherah, Baal, Chemosh, Dagon etc. evolved over time and came to influence all the variegated ancient Israelitish cults before the Exile) you will have to explain some of your blanket terms whicch you bandy about without so much as a second thought - it always helps to clarify your terms.

I’ll get back to it later. Too many subjects to focus on.

…What, for examplee do you mean by 'the Bible' -- precisely -- do you mean 'The Hebrew Bibl'e –

Of course – I’m referring to the “Hebrew/Aramaic” Scriptures from Genesis to Malachi and “Greek” Scriptures from Matthew to Revelation.

something that didn't even exist as a single text between two covers until after the council of Javneh in AD 90 -- a full 20 years after Rome ground Israel to powder in the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66- 72 CE)?
You DID know, didn't you, that the Jews did not have a single book between two covers that 'defiled the hands' (i.e. was considered canonical/sacred) until long affter the execution for armed Sedition against Rome of R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (BCE 12 to 36 CE) aka 'Iesous' and that the earliest Nazorean 'Palestinian Messianic' Jews (i.e. 'first Christians') quoted texts like I Henoch and Testaments of the 12 as 'scripture' ?
Or do you mean the 'Catholic Bible', with all those 'apocryphal' books such as I-IV Ezra and Macabbees and Ecclesiasticus (The Scrol of the Book of the Wisdom of Yeshua ben Sirach) and The Testament of Moses (aka Book of Jubilees?) thrown into the mix, whose 'old Testament' is NOT based on the Masoretic text used by Protestants and Jews to-day but based on Jerome's Latin Vulgate, which is a loose translation of one of the versions of the Greek LXX Septuaginta versions (contra the Hebrew consonantal text underlay to the Greek of the texts of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion)?

Or do you mean the 'Dead Sea Scrolls Bible' - a hotch potch of more than 800 Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic books which are more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text of today's Rabinnic Jews with on average more than 18% differences with the later Masoretic pointed text (i.e. by counting all the Hebrew consonants per column, exactly) whicch include sacred books like the Scroll of the Book of the Testament of the 12 Patriarchs being the sons of Yakkov andd the Scroll of the Book of the Words of Henoch to all the Sons of Light in the Last Days, i.e. I Henoch (both of which Coptic Christian churches in Egypt held to be 'canonical') - and from which R. Yehoshua bar Yosef the Galilean (Gk. Iesous) freely quoted in the 4 canonical Greek 'gospels'?

Or...do you mean the so-called 'Protestant Bible' whose 'Old Testment' is based on the late Masoretic pointed vowelled text of the Masoretes ('babylonian recension') from AD 960 and whose 'new Testament' (based on 5,446 Greek manuscripts, no two exactly alike) is not even included in the so-called "Hebew Bible" at all?

Since you’re depending too much on your books – thus I’m not surprised by your statements above. I wish I had more time to go over them tut time is a wastin...

In any case I on the other hand put my trust on the validated unchanging message contained in the Word of God – the Holy Bible. An Inspired book proven by the passing of time - ever more true as we increase our knowledge!

And based on your statements above I think you don’t know or not aware of it but the “Hebrew/Aramaic” Scriptures were already in existence and completed before the “council of Javneh in AD 90”, before the rest of the "Bibliotheca Divina" (27 books) were fully canonized. Pointing to the fact that its author God (YHWH – Yehuwah/Jehovah) is behind its preservation down to our time.

Case in point:

Jewish tradition credits Ezra with beginning the compiling and cataloging of the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, and it says that this was completed by Nehemiah.

Some have doubted Ezra’s qualifications (which I’m sure you will also) but Ezra was certainly well equipped for such a work, being one of the inspired Bible writers himself as well as a priest, scholar, and official copyist of sacred writings. (Ezra 7:1-11) This one is well established.

I don’t know about you but there is no reason to doubt the traditional view that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures was fixed by the end of the fifth century B.C.E.

Also in case you didn’t know we today list 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures while the traditional Jewish canon (including these same books) counts them as 24. Some authorities, combines Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, counted the number of books as 22. The number of catalogs is different but the main thing is it still holds exactly the same canonical writings.

Interestingly the Jewish catalog equal the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet. Below is the list of the 24 books according to the traditional Jewish canon as reference:

The Law (The Pentateuch)
1. Genesis
2. Exodus
3. Leviticus
4. Numbers
5. Deuteronomy
The Prophets
6. Joshua
7. Judges
8. Samuel (First and Second together as one book)
9. Kings (First and Second together as one book)
10. Isaiah
11. Jeremiah
12. Ezekiel
13. The Twelve Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as one book)

The Writings (Hagiographa)
14. Psalms
15. Proverbs
16. Job
17. The Song of Solomon
18. Ruth
19. Lamentations
20. Ecclesiastes
21. Esther
22. Daniel
23. Ezra (Nehemiah was included with Ezra)
24. Chronicles (First and Second together as one book)

If you doubt this list I suggest to consult the Jewish canon.

Following are Dates and Place where the they were written and the writers: (I’ll skip some so as not to make the list long)

Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1513 B.C.E.
Time Covered: “In the beginning” to 1657 B.C.E.
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1513 B.C.E.
Time Covered: “In the beginning” to 1657 B.C.E.
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: 1512 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 1 month (1512 B.C.E.)
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness and Plains of Moab
Writing Completed: 1473 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 1512-1473 B.C.E.
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Plains of Moab
Writing Completed: 1473 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 2 months (1473 B.C.E.)
Writer: Joshua
Place Written: Canaan
Writing Completed: c. 1450 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 1473–c. 1450 B.C.E.
Writer: Samuel
Place Written: Israel
Writing Completed: c. 1100 B.C.E.
Time Covered: c. 1450–c. 1120 B.C.E.
Writer: Samuel
Place Written: Israel
Writing Completed: c. 1090 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 11 years of judges’ rule
…
Writer: Moses
Place Written: Wilderness
Writing Completed: c. 1473 B.C.E.
Time Covered: Over 140 years between 1657 and 1473 B.C.E.
Writer: Isaiah
Place Written: Jerusalem
Writing Completed: After 732 B.C.E.
Time Covered: c. 778–after 732 B.C.E.
…
Writer: Amos
Place Written: Judah
Writing Completed: c. 804 B.C.E.
…
Writer: Haggai
Place Written: Jerusalem
Writing Completed: 520 B.C.E.
Time Covered: 112 days (520 B.C.E.)
…
Writer: Malachi
Place Written: Jerusalem
Writing Completed: After 443 B.C.E.
====

Thus from the above list - the writer’s of Greek Scriptures were able to quote DIRECTLY from it. They usually will say “It is written” or “as it is written” ((Rom. 15:9).

Jesus’ own words:

“He now said to them: “These are my words which I spoke to YOU while I was yet with YOU, that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.” (Luke 24:44)

Obviously none of the “Apocryphal” books were recognized as part of the Bible canon.

Here’s some historical facts that even you can appreciate (I hope).

Quoting from “Against Apion” Jewish historian Flavius Josephus of the first century C.E said:

“We do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty* and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. . . . From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”.

Thus Josephus shows that the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures had been fixed long before the first century C.E or to be precise long before the “council of Javneh in AD 90”

*the equivalent of our 39 today.

So you’re gravely mistaken in your understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

a “simpleton” will prolly not be able to stand against a specialists like you with such Goliath type of knowledge. But since I have the Bible on my side then I can confidently say noone can match the wisdom of God (YHWH –Yehuwah/Jehovah). To me all the books ever created - none of them can compare to the Bible. For the messages contained therein are indisputable and unchanging. It always proved to be accurate and true – whether it’s History, Science, Humanity and ESPECIALLY Prophecy!

No doubt at all. By all accounts and known facts, the accuracy of the Bible is incomparable to the any mythical books produced by any Kingdom or Empire such as “Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal”. Can't even get close to it.

The Bible stands on its own merit!

Bottom line imho ALL that you did (or the authors) was take portions of the “Bibliotheca Divina” then compare it with mythical writings (from “Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal”). Any resemblance as regards to writing styles, nomenclatures, spellings – yadiyada are considered suspect and if found then BAM! – the Bible and its contents are MYTHS. Such type of critical analysis is not honest at all if not deceiving.

But let's put it to the test – your books against the Wisdom of God.

Or what 'Bible text' do you mean, exactly? Are you under the jejune impression that there is even a single text to be considered, even after all those Dead Sea Scroll Manuscripts came to light since November of 1946?

Let's start there and work our way up, shall we ?

OK here’s two for starters (pick one or both)

Since you claimed that the Book of Job was a copy or borrowed from pagan worshiping empires/kingdoms like the ““Egyptians, Sumerians, Akkadians, Assyrians, Babylonians and Ugaritic Cannanites etal”.

Then can you please show me exactly where Job and its writer Moses get the message from?
If it contains the truth that (Fact 3) the earth is “... hanging the earth upon nothing.”—Job 26:7.

Or this - you said that:

” …through the Monarchical period down to the Babylonian Exile (587 BCE) - with alarming implications for the source material of the 'Torah' (esp the Code of Hammurabi c. 1756 BCE)”

Show me please where in the the Hammurabi Code (or any other mythical writings) “The Decalogue (The Ten Words)” was taken from? And which “codes” is of the Highest Moral Quality and Purity!

A man made code or the inspired code - the Word of God (YHWH- Jehovah/Yehuwah)?

BTW – the entire law codes given to Israel were simplified elegantly and beautifully by Jesus (Yahuwshuwah ).

He put it this way:

“And one of them, versed in the Law, asked, testing him: 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 He said to him: “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this, ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”” (Matthew 22:35-40)

Ty,
Edmc2

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


It's all in there you just refuse to see it.

ty

reply to post by daskakik

So they did use an empty cell but the DNA was synthesized in a test tube so the resulting life was unique.

They used a pre-existing specimen - whether it was alive or in suspended animation - it didn't say.
If it was a dead specimen then that's something. But as it turns out what they did is:

Finally they developed a technique of stripping bacteria cells of all original DNA and substituting it with the new artificial code.

They already have the foundation - they just manipulated the gene/DNA to create a synthetic "bacteria". I believe this falls under genetic engineering/cloning/biotechnology – nothing new.

What you and the evolutionists don't understand is that the most honest stand that I can take is that I don't know how life came about. That is the truth. I'm willing to bet that you and the evolutionists don't really know either. You may each have theories that have convinced you but I don't consider any of them proven fact.

What I don't like about your facts is that you take a simple fact and want to use that as basis to substantiate something that may not be true.

Fact is fact no matter how it's presented - opinion is opinion no matter how it's presented.

For example, Star Wars starts by saying "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away." Fact one - the universe seems very old so a long time ago did exist therefore Star Wars is a true story. Fact two - There are galaxies far far away just more proof that science proves that the original Star Wars and the Precuals for that matter are fact. Only those who choose not to see this truth can be blind to such obvious truths.

I think they call it scify which is different from the proven facts of the Bible.

I have no problem with you feeling that the bible is truth. I just don't agree with your claim that its authenticity is proven by the facts you have shown here.

They say that the "proof is in the pudding" - thus prove the OP is wrong.

Take for example - did the universe and the earth had a beginning?
Is the earth "hanging upon nothing"?

ty
edmc2

reply to post by MrXYZ

Great example of god of the gaps...again We have no clear evidence of that claim, scientists simply don't know...but at least they're humble enough to admit that instead of making up fairy tales that are often demonstrably wrong. Like the whole parting the waters to create the heavens and the earth hogwash

Just because scientists don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's impossible to occur - take you back to "event horizon" - according to known laws it can't happen yet it's there.

ty,
edmc2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Great example of god of the gaps...again We have no clear evidence of that claim, scientists simply don't know...but at least they're humble enough to admit that instead of making up fairy tales that are often demonstrably wrong. Like the whole parting the waters to create the heavens and the earth hogwash

Just because scientists don't know doesn't mean it didn't happen or that it's impossible to occur - take you back to "event horizon" - according to known laws it can't happen yet it's there.

ty,
edmc2

Yeah, but in the absence of objective evidence you don't go walking around claiming pink unicorns are real, or do you?

By Keith Newman.

The authenticity of the Holy Bible has been attacked at regular intervals by athiests and theologians alike but none have explained away the mathematical seal beneath its surface.

It would seem the divine hand has moved to prevent counterfeiting in the pages of the Bible in a similar manner to the line that runs through paper money. Bible numerics appears to be God's watermark of authenticity.

Vital research on this numeric seal was completed by a native of the world's most renowned atheistic nation, Russia. Dr Ivan Panin was born in Russia on Dec 12, 1855. As a young man he was an active nihilist and participated in plots against the Czar and his government. He was a mathematical genius who died a Harvard scholar and a citizen of the United States in 1942.

Panin was exiled from Russia. After spending a number of years studying in Germany he went to the United States where he became an outstanding lecturer on literary criticism.

Panin was known as a firm agnostic - so well known that when he discarded his agnosticism and accepted the Christian faith, the newspapers carried headlines telling of his conversion.

It was in 1890 that Dr Panin made the discovery of the mathematical structure underlining the vocabulary of the Greek New Testament. He was casually reading the first verse of the gospel of John in the Greek: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with the God and the Word was God...".

Dr Panin was curious as to why the Greek word for "the"' preceeded the word "God"' in one case and not the other. In examining the text he became aware of a number relationship. This was the first of the discoveries that led to his conversion and uncovered the extensive numeric code.

Oldest manuscripts

Dr Panin found his proof in the some of the oldest and most accurate manuscripts - the Received Hebrew Text and the Westcott and Hort Text.

In the original languages of the Bible, mostly Hebrew and Greek, there are no separate symbols for numbers, letters of the alphabet are also used to indicate numbers.

The numeric value of a word is the sum total of all its letters. It was curiosity that first caused Dr Panin to begin toying with the numbers behind the texts. Sequences and patterns began to emerge. These created such a stirring in the heart of the Russian that he dedicated 50 years of his life to painstakingly comb the pages of the Bible.

This complex system of numbering visibly and invisibly saturates every book of the scriptures emphasising certain passages and illustrating deeper or further meaning in types and shadows. The 66 books of the Bible 39 in the Old and 27 in the New were written by 33 different people.
Those authors were scattered throughout various countries of the world and from widely different backgrounds. Many of them had little or no schooling. The whole Bible was written over a period of 1500 years with a 400 year silence apart from the Apocrypha between the two testaments. Despite the handicaps the biblical books are found to be a harmonious record, each in accord with the other.

Dr Panin says the laws of probability are exceeded into the billions when we try and rationalise the authorship of the Bible as the work of man. He once said: "If human logic is worth anything at all we are simply driven to the conclusion that if my facts I have presented are true, man could never have done this.

Inspiration from on high

"We must assume that a Power higher than man guided the writers in such a way, whether they knew it or not, they did it and the Great God inspired them to do it''.

The Bible itself states clearly that it is the literal God-breathed'' living word of the Creator. The words "Thus saith the Lord"' and "God said"' occur more than 2500 times throughout scripture.

In 2 Timothy 3:16 it states "All scripture is given by inspiration of God". Then in 2 Peter 9:20-21 it plainly states: "No prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost".

Let's take the number seven as an illustration of the way the patterns work. Seven is the most prolific of the mathematical series which binds scripture together. The very first verse of the Bible "In the begining God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1), contains over 30 different combinations of seven.

This verse has seven Hebrew words having a total of 28 letters 4 x 7. The numeric value of the three nouns "God", "heaven" and "earth" totals 777. Any number in triplicate expresses complete, ultimate or total meaning.

Also tightly sealed up with sevens are the genealogy of Jesus, the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection. Seven occurs as a number 187 times in the Bible (41 x 7), the phrase "seven-fold" occurs seven times and "seventy" occurs 56 times (7 x 8).

In the Book of Revelation seven positively shines out: there are seven golden candlesticks, seven letters to seven churches, a book sealed with seven seals, seven angels standing before the Lord with seven trumpets, seven thunders and seven last plagues. In fact there are over 50 occurrences of the number seven in Revelation alone.

Divisible by seven

There are 21 Old Testament writers whose names appear in the Bible (3 x 7). The numeric value of their names is divisible by seven. Of these 21, seven are named in the New Testament: Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Hosea and Joel. The numeric values of these names is 1554 (222 x 7). David's name is found 1134 times (162 x 7).

God's seal also pervades creation as though it were woven into the very fabric of nature.

www.wordworx.co.nz...

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by randyvs

 

thats because using the bible as an infalible history book is the stupidest thing a person could do.

Anyone who does that will soon be searching for a way to kill themselves just to hid from the embaressment.

I can't imagine anything more stupid than what you just wrote. Sorry

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by daskakik

 

What you and the evolutionists don't understand is that the most honest stand that I can take is that I don't know how life came about.

The theory of evolution makes no statement regarding how life started. And scientists admit they don't know how it started, that's why there's several hypothesis and none is proven to the same extent as evolution

So rip apart everything that does tell us? That is assinine. If science doesn't know, then science should keep it's mouth shut about things it doesn't know. Come back and tell us when science has it all figured out. Make sure none of it sounds like magic either.

Yeah, but in the absence of objective evidence you don't go walking around claiming pink unicorns are real, or do you?

Science can't tell us they never existed either.
Keep bark'in

reply to post by Faith2011


An interesting article, a confirmed agnostic converts himself.

Mostly based on the numerology of of the bible, well everybody that converts has their own personal spiritual epiphany moment. One of my relatives had his when he was on a troop ship to England he had a lot of time on his hands so he did a lot of reading, when he got there he decided he couldn't fight based on what the bible teaches in the new testament about loving your brother, and living and dieing by the sword.
A rare man.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by daskakik

 

They already have the foundation - they just manipulated the gene/DNA to create a synthetic "bacteria". I believe this falls under genetic engineering/cloning/biotechnology – nothing new.

Actually they created the DNA in a test tube not just manipulated it.

I think they call it scify which is different from the proven facts of the Bible.

Fact is fact no matter how it's presented - opinion is opinion no matter how it's presented.

The bible is not proven fact. The title says it all "why you believe the bible to be factual". That's your opinion and not fact.

Take for example - did the universe and the earth had a beginning?
Is the earth "hanging upon nothing"?

Did the universe have a beggining? Yes but then does this make all the other creation myths correct. If not why does it make yours correct?
Is the earth hanging on nothing? No it's being held by gravity. Thought this had been established.

You keep posting opinions like they are facts. Your even brushing aside all the good information that Sigismundus is offering and even say:

a “simpleton” will prolly not be able to stand against a specialists like you with such Goliath type of knowledge. But since I have the Bible on my side then I can confidently say noone can match the wisdom of God (YHWH –Yehuwah/Jehovah).

So I guess facts be damned your faith trumps all. That's fine but all many are doing is pointing out that it is faith and not fact. Nothing wrong with it but accept it for what it is.