Creationism cannot be true

ItzShadyT

WesternIowaParanormal
reply to post by ItzShadyT

 

WIND

Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?

Can you see it? NO. Can you smell or taste it? NO

Can you feel it? Yes. Can you see its affects on plants, animals and people? Yes

God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things.

Really? I don't believe in god, so I shouldn't believe in wind? Wind is a concurrent thing. We have proof of wind. I can physically FEEL wind if I open my window.

Wind Turbines

^ You know what those are? Machines that are powered BY WIND. Something that exist indefinitely. I'm actually curious of the affects that god has on on these things you said something about?

EDIT: Just seen Iowa in your username. It's people like you that give us Iowans a bad name..

edit on 8-12-2013 by ItzShadyT because: IOWA!

I don't think it is W.I.P. giving the good people of Iowa a bad name but you are making a good go of it

UxoriousMagnus

ItzShadyT

WesternIowaParanormal
reply to post by ItzShadyT

 

WIND

Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?

Can you see it? NO. Can you smell or taste it? NO

Can you feel it? Yes. Can you see its affects on plants, animals and people? Yes

God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things.

Really? I don't believe in god, so I shouldn't believe in wind? Wind is a concurrent thing. We have proof of wind. I can physically FEEL wind if I open my window.

Wind Turbines

^ You know what those are? Machines that are powered BY WIND. Something that exist indefinitely. I'm actually curious of the affects that god has on on these things you said something about?

EDIT: Just seen Iowa in your username. It's people like you that give us Iowans a bad name..

edit on 8-12-2013 by ItzShadyT because: IOWA!

I don't think it is W.I.P. giving the good people of Iowa a bad name but you are making a good go of it

No. How is his post relevant?

"God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things." < I asked him what those effects would be.

"Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?" < What kind of question is that? Do I believe in wind? What's next, do I believe in water? What about trees. Them trees are kind of sketchy..

edmc^2
To the contrary, he wrote many more facts that are scientifically verifiable. In fact, man's scientific knowledge today, although advanced due to ever advancing education and amazing instruments is quite simply trying to catch up with what the Bible writers knew long time ago.

Fact is, Moses wrote the book of Job, containing the words of Job stating that the earth is "hanging upon empty space".

Here's another:

According to The World Book Encyclopedia, 1987, Vol. 9, p. 227)

This is moving the goal posts back. We started off talking about how Moses guessed that the universe was created. You said that this was an amazing guess. Now you are bringing in other guesses that he made. Irrelevant. But in either case, I'm sure I could show just like with the "guessed that the universe was created" guess that these guesses aren't as amazing as you claim.

“The best informed medical researchers now doing the best work are arriving at the conclusion that the Bible is a very accurate scientific book. . . . The facts of life, diagnosis, treatment, and preventive medicine as given in the Bible are far more advanced and reliable than the theories of Hippocrates, many still unproven, and some found to be grossly inaccurate.”—Dr. H. O. Philips, in a letter to The AMA [American Medical Association] News, published in its issue of July 10, 1967.

The statement made by AMA is still 100% accurate today.

A quote from 1967 isn't really relevant to today's times with how far our knowledge of science has come. For instance, they didn't know that space wasn't empty back then. Therefore this quote means nothing to me.

Correction - it's NOT "supposedly 100%" accurate - but verifiably 100% accurate!

Again, before you say one more time that "The fact of the matter is, that Job is wrong", answer please this simple question that I'm asking:

...with the naked eye, how does outer space look like - especially at night?

How would outer space looked like from the vantage point of a person (a nomad) living 3000 years ago - with no knowledge of tiny space particles or space age education?

How the sky looks to the naked eye 3000 years ago is an OBSERVATION not a GUESS. Please understand that. I've also demonstrated that it is a bad observation, because we now know differently. Therefore the guess isn't correct. But hey, let's look at another part of the guess that Job got wrong. The Earth wasn't "hung" anywhere in space or any version of hung to include suspended or placed. The Earth happens to be hurtling through space extremely fast. It is also moving in several different directions all at once. It is orbiting the sun, which is in turn orbiting the center of the galaxy which in turn may be orbiting something else but at the very least is moving away from where the Big Bang occurred. At no point in time will the Earth EVER be in the same spot of the universe it was at in the past because of this.

We also know that the Earth was created from the debris left from a nearby Supernova, just like everything else in the solar system. All this debris started rotating, with most of it being sucked into the middle to form the sun. The rest slammed into each other to form the planets. It was very chaotic. At one point an object supposedly the size of Mars hit the proto-Earth and created the moon. This happened over millions if not billions of years. To say that anything was "placed" or "hung" in space is wrong too. There is nothing about Job's "guess" that is correct or even worth mentioning as something miraculous.

You keep going on and on about what the view of the sky would have looked thousands of years ago, but who cares? Job looked at the sky, made a guess that was wrong on at least two accounts, and you say that this is some sort of divine inspiration? I'd say that if this was divine inspiration, then God is screwing with people, because he would have known all the things I've outlined in this post and could have easily corrected Job.

WesternIowaParanormal
reply to post by ItzShadyT

 

WIND

Do you believe in wind? Most people do, but why?

Can you see it? NO. Can you smell or taste it? NO

Can you feel it? Yes. Can you see its affects on plants, animals and people? Yes

God is the same, I am unable to see him but I see his affects on people and things.

LOL, Reminds me of.

Sh*t Jean-Claude Van Damme Said



Here's another one from the famous philosopher.



Linky

reply to post by flyingfish


Van damne, A true historical legend.

Back on topic. Why do us humans look at ourselves as such a supreme being? We ARE Animals. We're actually inferior to a lot of other animals species, especially if you take away technology. I'm not 100% sure that we are where we are because of evolution, but that theory has the most backing in, so I'm gonna hop on that wagon. Where's your evidence that we were created by something? Someone? And PLEASE do NOT say the bible. I could argue that orcs n goblins exist because I read Lord of the rings. Faith is what you make it people, wether it's true or not. If you believe in something strongly enough, it's true to you.

Of course, that's all just my opinion, and mean no disrespect to any one or their religion.

reply to post by ItzShadyT


we create birth control pills... we're superior

ItzShadyT
reply to post by flyingfish

 

Van damne, A true historical legend.

Back on topic. Why do us humans look at ourselves as such a supreme being? We ARE Animals. We're actually inferior to a lot of other animals species, especially if you take away technology. I'm not 100% sure that we are where we are because of evolution, but that theory has the most backing in, so I'm gonna hop on that wagon. Where's your evidence that we were created by something? Someone? And PLEASE do NOT say the bible. I could argue that orcs n goblins exist because I read Lord of the rings. Faith is what you make it people, wether it's true or not. If you believe in something strongly enough, it's true to you.

Of course, that's all just my opinion, and mean no disrespect to any one or their religion.

Van Damne, that is awesome. LMAO.

I first of all want to address the Iowa issue. I don't think most people care about us middle Americans so we need to stick together. That being said, I do respect your opinion but do disagree with it. There is a video on your tube called Evolution Vs. God. Check it out HERE

Its a pretty good video and makes some good points.

reply to post by Krazysh0t



Sorry, but you're the one who started this guessing game. It wasn't me since my contention from the very beginning was that the Bible is of Divine Origin. You on the other hand said that whatever Moses wrote was a guess.

Remember this post?

Again here's what I said:

'So if you're saying they've guessed it, are you admitting that they "guess" quite accurately then?

Is that a yes?

Thus, their "guess" is based on facts. Correct?

The universe had a beginning - was created!

That's an AMAZING guess considering the knowledge they have back then.

No telescopes, no satellites, no modern science.

Now, how many more "guesses" do you think they got right?

For instance, is this another "lucky guess"?

Job said this:

7 God stretched out the northern sky... and hung the earth in empty space. -- Job 26:7 GNB

"...hung the earth in EMPTY SPACE" - lucky guess again?

Satellites shows and confirmed that indeed the earth is suspended in empty space."

Or this post?

"lucky guess" - so that's your line and defense and you're sticking to it, yes? OK then, lets see how far you will take this "lucky guess" line....

As for this long answer of yours to a very elementary question about the earth hanging on 'empty space', that is:

'How would outer space looked like from the vantage point of a person (a nomad) living 3000 years ago - with no knowledge of tiny space particles or space age education?

"...with the naked eye, how does outer space look like - especially at night?'

Wowee zowie...

u said:

How the sky looks to the naked eye 3000 years ago is an OBSERVATION not a GUESS. Please understand that. I've also demonstrated that it is a bad observation, because we now know differently. Therefore the guess isn't correct. But hey, let's look at another part of the guess that Job got wrong. The Earth wasn't "hung" anywhere in space or any version of hung to include suspended or placed. The Earth happens to be hurtling through space extremely fast. It is also moving in several different directions all at once. It is orbiting the sun, which is in turn orbiting the center of the galaxy which in turn may be orbiting something else but at the very least is moving away from where the Big Bang occurred. At no point in time will the Earth EVER be in the same spot of the universe it was at in the past because of this. We also know that the Earth was created from the debris left from a nearby Supernova, just like everything else in the solar system. All this debris started rotating, with most of it being sucked into the middle to form the sun. The rest slammed into each other to form the planets. It was very chaotic. At one point an object supposedly the size of Mars hit the proto-Earth and created the moon. This happened over millions if not billions of years. To say that anything was "placed" or "hung" in space is wrong too. There is nothing about Job's "guess" that is correct or even worth mentioning as something miraculous. You keep going on and on about what the view of the sky would have looked thousands of years ago, but who cares? Job looked at the sky, made a guess that was wrong on at least two accounts, and you say that this is some sort of divine inspiration? I'd say that if this was divine inspiration, then God is screwing with people, because he would have known all the things I've outlined in this post and could have easily corrected Job.

wow indeed! But it sounds like and looks like you're trying very very hard to avoid a very very simple question.

What-up?

Why can't you just give a simple answer - instead of a lecture?

I wonder why?

Any way the answer is: it looks EMPTY.

But I think you don't want to say the word "EMPTY" because it proves my point again. That Moses' quote -"guess"-unquote or Jobs quote-"guess"-unquote are 100% accurate - proving my point that the information they got was OF DIVINE ORIGIN.

Simple as that.

reply to post by edmc^2


I did answer your question. If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see that I had said that what you are describing is an observation not a guess. It is also incorrect. Look, I wouldn't be harping on this so hard except for the fact that the bible is supposed to be divinely inspired. Not to mention, you are the one who said how amazing it was that Moses was able to predict that the universe had a beginning. I just said that it was a simple 50/50 guess that he luckily got right.

Christians repeat this bit about divine inspiration all the time. Well my contention is that these predictions, guesses, or observations from Moses and Job are WRONG. If the bible is supposedly divinely inspired, why didn't God tell them the correct information? Nope, they had to write about what they saw, which doesn't make it a great statement at all. Just an observation made by some sheep herder thousands of years ago, using the tools at his disposal (naked eyesight). There is nothing of note about any of those biblical passages, because I've demonstrated with their incorrectness that they cannot be divinely inspired (unless God has a sick sense of humor and likes to mislead people for thousands of years or something).

Another thing of note, is that these passages are describing things that God did. He created the universe. He hung the earth in empty space. So these people are either A) getting their information from God about his actions, B) making it up and basing it on what they can witness and see or C) God is lying to them. Of those three options, B is the most likely answer. Of course if that is the case then these two "prophets" are attributing things to God that are incorrect. Again, back on this divine inspiration thing, why wouldn't God insist that the right things were written down? Why let the wrong answers be repeated through the years and then transcribed on paper? He certainly had plenty of time to correct this inaccuracy, yet here we are arguing over it.

reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal


There is also a thread on it here where most of the claims made in that video were debunked or shown to be bad logical reasoning (mostly a bunch of logical fallacies and quote mining)

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If everything was black or white there would be people interpreting black as white. Man is in error first off. Always has been.

If God just told a select few the "answers to all questions", from the beginning, and we told others, how many times do you think man would be in error when telling others?

If God just told each and every one of us all the answers to our questions then, what are we doing HERE ( Earth)? Just hanging out in a heavenly place is what it would be like . However we are not in a heavenly place.

Why?

Does ANY ancient texts, philosophy, or science give us any clue as to WHY we are here on Earth?

Yes, they do.

Which is right? How does one believe one is right while another person does not?

There are many questions to which the Bible has answers to. Other ancient texts do as well. Choose one, choose many, or choose none at all.

My point throughout this thread is there is a WAY to understand the Bible. The way one interprets the book is everything from my point of view.

The Bible speaks of reincarnation to me, to another it doesn't. If you take reincarnation into consideration then the Bible brings with it more meanings that what we are told in church. It is then easy to see life stories in the Bible as HIS-STORY mirroring ALL OF OUR COLLECTIVE HISTORY.

Science tells us about a black hole. People that have medically died and came back to tell a familiar story say they were traveling in a tunnel. They sensed them self being sucked in said tunnel only to see the light at the end.

With a science background or a little bit of scientific research you could find the Bible to be more accurate rather than lacking. "As above so below". Our Biology here on Earth vs the Biology of the solar system is intriguing to say the least.

The solar system recycles everything, nothing is lost. Same here... nothing is ever lost. Energy transforms and so does our bodies. We bury one in the ground or burn it only to have another body in another timely realm only to rise against trials and tribulations once more. We learn that which wasn't learned before.

The Bible states our Father is in another place. If we have a "father" that makes us "children" to this father and this means we have the same" image" as he. We are being "raised" by this father. This energy in another realm has given his children instruction since the beginning of time itself. There are many of us, however we have the same his-story. We ALL have lived in this realm through trials and tribulations only to be raised again in spirit and in the flesh. The Bible says this and so much more.

Getting held up on another interpretation doesn't mean the Bible is worthless. It just means you are blaming others interpretations instead of seeking your own interpretation.

Ask and receive.

Double Post! Edited to delete!

reply to post by MamaJ


My problem with that is that God is leaving everything to interpretations. God doesn't have to give us all the answers in order to guide our paths, but it helps if the answers he gives are factually 100% correct. It gives veracity to his claim. If for instance, which lends more credence to God being real? A sheep herder gets inspired by something and writes in a book a description of our planet in relation to space, "God hung the Earth in empty space" or God actually TELLING the sheepherder, "Earth is actually traveling through space which is not empty like it appears"? Neither account says anything about how to live our lives or why we are here or anything, they are both just descriptions of what Earth is doing in space, so couldn't God just throw us a bone and tell us the real answer. Also, if God didn't want to tell us these things and discover them for himself, maybe He should have made it clear to Job not to include the incorrect description in his biblical account.

So if things in the bible that we can physically verify turn out not to be true, it puts doubt on the parts that require faith to believe. There is a saying that one lie will put doubt on a thousand truths. This is true and I'm sure if I told you this saying as a teaching tool to not lie, you'd agree with me. Well how come we don't put that saying to work here? If I am to even START believing in the bible, then the things that I can verify need to be true. If these things are not true, I cannot put my faith into it. Once you start putting your faith in something despite the falsehoods, you start rationalizing the falsehoods and chalk it up to things like interpretations.

Things like the contradictions I mentioned in the OP. If God had just ensured that the accounts stayed consistent from one part of the story to the next we may not even be having this conversation right now.

One more thing that I want to highlight. Why does there even need to be the question why? Religious types go on and on talking about how there needs to be a reason for all this and that God is that reason. Well show me the proof that there even needs to be a reason or purpose to our universe. If everything happened by random chance, then there definitely isn't a way. It just happened. I know it is kind of a sad way to look at things, but there needs to be SOMETHING that shows that there is a reason for everything.

peter vlar

That however is not the same as god giving Noah some blue prints and having him take 2 of every "kind" and fill a boat with them so that once the waters receded his family could incestuously repopulate the world. Simple genetics disproves that notion entirely.

Noah and His wife were not family (blood relatives), neither was Ham and his wife, Japheth and His wife, or Shem and His wife.

There were 8 human beings on board the Ark, no pair of individuals (married couples) were "incestuously" repopulating the Earth in any way shape or form.

Also clean meat animals had 7 of each type (cows, chickens, goats, deer, elk etc.), only unclean animals, not fit for mankind to consume were numbered 2 by 2 (pigs, horses, camels etc.).

Your "opinion" labeled as "simple genetics disprove this theory entirely" is not fact, but simple opinion, of which you are entitled to.

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


Except that those people had children who were also going to need to mate with someone and produce a child. With only 4 families available, your choice of options outside your immediate family is going to narrow pretty quickly within a generation or two. Besides its obvious that the couples aboard the ark weren't incestuous, they met pre-flood when the pickings weren't so slim.

peter vlar
Additionally there is zero evidence for a worldwide global flood as described in either the bible or earlier flood myths such as the Sumerian flood mythos. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of multiple and somewhat substantial LOCAL flood events. When you're entire worldview encompasses a couple 1000 square miles of course your whole world is destroyed in a massive flood.

From "A Symposium on Creation" (Vol. III), pg 32-65 by Stuart E. Nevins

"The earth's layered rocks yield many evidences that natural processes once acted with much greater intensity than at the present time. In many cases the deposition of the sedimentary rocks and their structures required enormous quantities of moving water. The extremely widespread strata often composed of coarse material seem to have required flood conditions to accumulate. Fossils generally testify of rapid, catastrophic burial. Several types of stratification require a catastrophic mechanism of sedimentation. Many major classes of sedimentary rocks are not known to be forming today and therefore imply circumstances of deposition different from those at present. Simplicity would suggest that the various evidences of Catastrophism be explained by a single flood catastrophe. Thus, the Stratigraphic record with its contained fossils instead of showing the evolutionary development of life and the gradual deposition of sediments over millions of years, actually bears testimony of the Flood."

The entire process of fossilization according geologists requires "rapid, catastrophic burial".

In My Opinion the fossils themselves point to 2 periods of "rapid, catastrophic burial" (ELE), the first prior to the re-creation of the Earth for mankind to live (dinosaurs go extinct, before mankind is created). And a second one after Adam by means of Noah's global flood.

God Bless,

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ElohimJD

 

Except that those people had children who were also going to need to mate with someone and produce a child. With only 4 families available, your choice of options outside your immediate family is going to narrow pretty quickly within a generation or two. Besides its obvious that the couples aboard the ark weren't incestuous, they met pre-flood when the pickings weren't so slim.

There was a ton of genetic diversity among the 8 on board the ark.

Yes Noah, his wife and sons were of the same stock, but the wives of the sons were totally different (races, genetic lines).

The true depletion of the gene pool occurred after Babel, and the confounding of the languages, when families were re-located to areas separated by waters and mountain, limiting genetic variation for multiple generations; stripping the variety of the pool.

To you point however, scripture agrees with you some, this is why Nimrod (great grandson of Noah; known as Horus in Egyptian myth) married his mother Semiremis (Isis), wife of Cush (Osiris). There are many examples of relatives mating in the few generation between Noah and Abraham; yet they all still "begot" children who lived for many years (average life span = 120 years for the first few generation after the flood).

God creates life, the architect of life can determine the genetics of his creation at any time and for any child born to the 8 survivors of the flood (which ever genetic paring results in successful life).

God Bless,

reply to post by ElohimJD


Or you know what else could be the case besides 8 people surviving a worldwide flood, participating in incest to repopulate the world, and have their offspring not only be devoid of genetic defects but also live far past the natural age of humans? That the flood wasn't worldwide and didn't reduce the population of Earth to 8 people.

ElohimJD

peter vlar
Additionally there is zero evidence for a worldwide global flood as described in either the bible or earlier flood myths such as the Sumerian flood mythos. There is plenty of archaeological evidence of multiple and somewhat substantial LOCAL flood events. When you're entire worldview encompasses a couple 1000 square miles of course your whole world is destroyed in a massive flood.

From "A Symposium on Creation" (Vol. III), pg 32-65 by Stuart E. Nevins

"The earth's layered rocks yield many evidences that natural processes once acted with much greater intensity than at the present time. In many cases the deposition of the sedimentary rocks and their structures required enormous quantities of moving water. The extremely widespread strata often composed of coarse material seem to have required flood conditions to accumulate. Fossils generally testify of rapid, catastrophic burial. Several types of stratification require a catastrophic mechanism of sedimentation. Many major classes of sedimentary rocks are not known to be forming today and therefore imply circumstances of deposition different from those at present. Simplicity would suggest that the various evidences of Catastrophism be explained by a single flood catastrophe. Thus, the Stratigraphic record with its contained fossils instead of showing the evolutionary development of life and the gradual deposition of sediments over millions of years, actually bears testimony of the Flood."

The entire process of fossilization according geologists requires "rapid, catastrophic burial".

In My Opinion the fossils themselves point to 2 periods of "rapid, catastrophic burial" (ELE), the first prior to the re-creation of the Earth for mankind to live (dinosaurs go extinct, before mankind is created). And a second one after Adam by means of Noah's global flood.

God Bless,

Opinions are great. They're even better when supported by facts. Neither yourself nor the good Stuart Nevins have any evidence to support your thesis. In fact, Mr. Nevins contradicts himself so often in his published literature it boggles my mind that anyone would utilize him as a source. For example, you quote him above and in tht quote he attempts to impress upon the reader that he not only understands geologic processes but tht they support his postulation. However, in 1974 he wrote

Historical geology is the field of study which seeks to decipher the clues and records bearing on the earth's history. Since the historical geologist cannot observe the history he is attempting to interpret (he cannot relive ancient times), scientific methods involving repeatable observation and experimentation cannot be utilized.

Nevins is mistaken because the earth is a geologically active planet, which means that scientists may observe geological processes as they are presently occurring. For example, scientists may observe and measure the rate of weathering and sedimentation, as well as the motion and interaction of the earth's crustal plates. While these measurements will not provide the exact age of different geological features of the earth, they do demonstrate that great ages are needed. Further more he says this in the same paper-

As an alternate path to the perilous ways of the empiricist, who trusts in his ability to observe the regularity of nature, or that rationalist, who trusts in his ability to frame a plausible conceptual history from basic immanent characteristics of matter, the Bible-believing Christian recognizes that his unaided mind and faculties of observation cannot solve the basic problems dealing with earth history. The Christian trusts in a revealed record from God, Himself, providing a basic framework within which the data of historical geology must be interpreted. Such a revealed history from a credible observer is the only way man can have absolute knowledge about the earth's history.

Once Stuart E. Nevins rejects empiricism, rationality and observation, what remains scientific in "scientific creationism"? Nevins denies that historical geology is a scientific discipline(see first quote). Nevins wants to have his cake and eat it too. He attempts to make science seem ignorant while simultaneously perverting some semblance of science to make himself sound like he knows what he's talking about and add support for his half cocked hypothesis when it just isn't there. The level of cognitive dissonance involved in accepting a paper that bashes science in one portion and then attempts to utilize that same discipline to support his premise is mind blowing. Even more so is that people read it and don't see how far off the ground his feet are.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


If we were all designed the same way then interpretation wouldn't be an issue. Some have within their brain a need to believe in a creator while others do not. Different paths for different folks. Earth is a school of knowledge for souls.

You say that God could throw us a bone and give us the answer however the answer is given in the Bible. You do not believe it.. so be it. lol

You keep throwing in Job. Have you ever read Job as if Jesus soul was/is Job? Have you kept a scientific mind while reading Job?

Do you really think everything here on Earth and in space is just here by coincidence and there is no "purpose" nor do each species "serve a purpose"? This to me is clearly evident. Everything has a purpose.

If the Universe has a beginning... then there is/was a first cause. With any cause there is a purpose to be had. Maybe we will never agree on anything in regards to creation being real and evident but maybe one day you will see your purpose and realize there is a purpose you are in fact here on Earth.

Do you see laws everywhere? I do.... I see laws throughout nature, space, and time. Where do these said laws come from? Do they come by coincidence?

Laws on their own do not create. There is a first cause. Mathematics can explain a lot but it does not create money from the sum. The Universe could have created itself from nothing but do you not agree that scientists/mathematicians are trying desperately to find a theory of everything, including the first cause... the beginning?

Newton himself studied the laws of nature and found that throughout the ages the literature passed down (Bible and other creation stories) had to be decoded in a way for interpretation and truth had been hidden from history. This is logical thinking from my point of view. Truth was not hidden because it was a secret, it had been lost with language differences and needed to be deciphered. Deciphering is a way of interpretation as well.

He spent a lot of time studying the secrets of Alchemy as well as the Bible and he found how "scientific" it was. Someone as smart as he, surely he would have noticed all the contradictions.

Edgar Cayce studying the Bible and reading it 65 times would have surely noticed what you notice? No? Why? Because they didn't read it as you read it. Their knowledge base was on a different scale. Their wisdom was full force from the scope of their learning and understanding the Bible's words.

Newton was obsessed with the hidden messages he discovered within the pages of the Bible. The man even wrote a book about interpretation of the Bible and said that very few interpret it correctly. Edgar Cayce's "Story of the Bible" is an excellent read as well. To me it seems the more you read it with an open mind the more you get out of it. It's not as black and white as you seem to think it is. I feel as though you believe it to be because you have not taken the time to understand, only taken the time to say the same thing as many say who too have not studied it. People study the Bible with notes that tell them what the passages mean but one who studies it with their own mind and heart are spoken to by the very creator that created ALL. What each and every soul learns is for him to learn about the world around him. What you learn from any text ... it's yours to learn... your personal purpose from seeking wisdom instead of another's knowledge.

Each and everyone of us have a philosophy of creation, life and death and in between, and each are open for interpretation. That's the great thing about life. I do not have to have your philosophy nor do you have to have mine. That in itself is for cults nor is it for the one who embraces their own divine will and right.