Unless you record God saying he created you (you know I'm kidding
), that is not proof at all of creation.
As the guys before me said, this is a debate, and if you believe in something that has no proof, or even evidence, then it's about as useless as a theory as believing magic shows are really "magic". You can be awed by it as much as you want, but it is only human to try and discover what really happened, whether it be creation, created evolution, or evolution.
<br>
No obviously you missed the point because I specifically remember saying that it was "personal proof," meaning that I know what I've experienced, just how you said you've experienced paranormal activity, and that proof only applies to me. I was in no way stating that you should believe me just because I've said I've experienced God. Many psychos have publicly stated that they physically talk to God or are prophets of God, but that doesn't prove that it's true. In many of those cases it is Satan rather than God talking. The only point I was making is that I have experienced God's work and in my own personal beliefs I know that he exists due to them. From all of my posts haven't you seen the underlying aspect that I don't try to force my opinion on anyone? I've constantly stated this is my belief but feel free to believe what you want. My post was in regards to having faith in God because I have received feedback on multiple occasions. I was in no way trying to abolish global atheism due to the fact that I personally know God exists. To each their own. I was merely justifying why I believe what I do. Do you notice how I am not questioning any of your beliefs? However, you are questioning mine and every other Christian on this forum so we are merely defending our positions. I have not even responded to your belief in a polytheistic god. Basically because it's your word against mine. Atleast I've given my reasons for my beliefs. What have you experienced to make you believe as such? And if you do believe in god(s) how is it different that the Christian god? I'm not trying to question you, I just don't know, and am intrigued. But like I said earlier, religion is an experience. There are a lot of strange things in this world, some tied to God, some to Satan. You should just be sure who you're talkin to. I know this is a debate forum, and that's what you do here. But debates like these cannot be proven right or wrong by words. <br>
No, you still are missing it...this has nothing to do with religion or god--it's about presenting information in a debate. In a debate, one cannot say, "This is it" and that's that--you have to form a basis of your statement. Glowing cavy did just that--My stance on this argument had less to do with the fact that he layed down "we were all created by god"--it was more on the fact that he didn't post the why he takes that stance in a debate forum.
It's like the nimrods that say "Hondas suck and Cavy's rule"--back up what you brought. State facts with supporting evidence; state truths and opinions with your beliefs behind it. Even if he would have stated "I believe that god created everyone" it would have sat better than "god created everyone"--the former comes out as a belief/opinion/truth, the latter comes out as a statement of fact.
That's my issue--it had nothing to do with attacking the belief in god, it was attacking the way he presented his stance in a debate. Truths we hold to ourselfs--facts are universal.
As for my stance on how i can state that to me there is no god in the monotheistic sense, i'll reiterate it on a few levels (and please use the following as a drug-free substitute for ritalin).
According to how the monotheists (Islam, christianity en masse, and Judaism) portray their god, is infallable, perfect, all-seeing, all knowing, and encompassing everything. In order to be all of that, God must be *everything*, meaning God is infinity. Which means, to me, God has to be everything. Which means he's light and dark, good and evil, saint and sinner, and every other duality there is--all of those attributes have to reside within God. Pure omnicense and pure omnipotence means that God has to be an absolute. An absolute cannot side with one part of a duality to extinguish it, lest the part that the absolute sides with be destroyed along with the one it opposed (Refer to the saying "Without the dark no one can recognize the light."). Thus, God could not make a sentient stand against anything, lest the polar duality it stands for be destroyed when the polar duality it stands against is destroyed.
Thus, to me, God would have to be the source of all good--and the source of all evil; not Satan. The only way God can work as a true absolute is if Satan is an aspect of God's evil. If Satan is not an aspect of God's evil (God is everything, after all), then God is not absolue, not omnipotent, not omniscent, and not all-powerful.
Thinking along those lines--all the "rules" that god sayeth unto us he could not utter if he was truly omnipotent, because the aspects of him that are the polar opposites of his rules unto us exist, and because they exist they are an aspect of God, and god cannot destry an aspect of himself without destroying the polar opposite aspect that God cherishes. Once you reach absolute status, you lose all recognition.
To illustrate how i see this, look at the saying "without the dark no one can recognize the light". Deeply ponder it. Imagine, if you will, a world without any darkness whatsoever. There are no shadows, no shade, everything is the same level of brightness. All there is, is light. Without knowing dark as "no light", how could you know light? We know light because of dark, and conversely, we know dark because of light. In a world without darkness, light just is. Kinda like God in the sense that the moniotheists would have people believe. Unexplainable because there is nothing to contrast him to--no duality form. No "anti-god". Satan in the monotheistic view doesn't count--Satan is not God's equal polar opposite. Satan is a fallen angel on a lesser eschelon of being than God.
Thus, If God just is--he can't judge lest he destroy himself. God is good and evil and everything inbetween--he is everything (and, upon being an absolute--THE absolute, loses sentience). Yet, the monotheistic "books of dogma" (All the versions of the Torah, the Bible, the Koran, et al), have us believe that he is Sentient, has a stance on issues, and is jealous. He can't be omnipotent with those qualities. the only other possible explanation is that God, while not being all-powerful, is still damned powerful, but has an equally opposite antithesis that those books don't write about--or are downplaying the power of said antithesis (Satan could be God's equal and opposite, but the "books of dogma", thinking along those lines, are downplaying Satan's power).
Thus, God, to me, in the Monotheistic sense can only exist as THE absolute--Infinity, and thus cannot do all the things the bible attributes to him. Otherwise, he's not all-powerful and not an absolute--just a higher being with a polar opposite that is rarely mentioned.
From the standpoint of the origins of us--i look at things as cyclic--not linear. I find that in my perception, while dimensions exist in the fininte, there is always a way to make that same dimension infinite. The easiest example of showing this is to look at a line. A line is a finite 1-dimensional object. A line, curved in the 2nd dimension becomes a circle. If you are on that circle and can only percieve in 1 dimension, the circle to you is a line that goes on forever, and if you could track where you've been, you'll see that it repeats itself. Even if we bump ourself up to the 2nd dimension finite object--a plane, even that, curved in the thrid dimension (a surface of a sphere), and percieved in only 2 dimensions, you have a neverending plane. If you think about the surface of the earth--for a second, is there any end of Earth? if you run, walk, swim, any 2-dimensional activity--where do you run out of earth?
From here, we go into the theoretical, but, Curved space theory still holds to this observation. a 3-dimensional space curved in the 4th dimension (the space of a hypercube) would accurately explain the shape of the universe--space without end. Head in one direction, and you'll eventually come to the same spot. For those that are brave enough to risk short-circuiting their minds--imagine a sphere, but every point on the outside of the sphere is the same point as the opposite point of the diameter of the sphere.
Now, to go further, there's a concept i have to explain--before we get to the aging of the universe...Infinity. Infinity is an absolute--it is the selection set containing everything. Many would argue that infinitessimal is it's polar opposite--it's not. Infinitessimal and infinity are ther same thing, you just head in a different direction to get there (that's how I see it).
Now. Many conclude that the big bang is the "beginning" of the universe. I don't see it that way--I see it as a turning point; infinitessimally small, infinitely dense. The other turning point is the opposite--infinitely large, infinitessimaly sparse.
Now, looking at it like this, and taking enrtopy into consideration--the universe is expanding at this point--and has been since the big bang. Eventually, all outward forces will cease--no more solar wind, no more nuclear fusion--all that's left is the inertia from the big bang. But, inertia only works when there is no other forces around--there is another force--Gravity.
Gravity--the best description for gravity is that its matter warping space/time. the best illustration of this it to take a large rubber sheet, stretch it out, and put a softball on it--it "dents" the sheet, causing a well that affects all other objects on that sheet of rubber.
Now, take that concept of gravity, and apply that to the universe, and remove all friction (the vacuum of space is frictionless). That being said, in an empty universe, a since electron at one end of the universe and a single electron at the other end, and they will eventually meet and collide. The way you can describe the "well" that any object creates is logarhythmic--in that even in a perticle as small as a gluon--no place in the universe is completely without it's gravitational effects--no matter how slight. And, when entropy fully happens, and there is nomore outward forces--only inertia, the leftover matter in the universe will exerty gravity on everything--causing the inertia to slowly stop. At that point--when density is infintely small, and the universe's size is infinitely large, is the antithesis of the big bang. Once everything stops, gravity will slowly pull things back in, and the inertia will continue to pull everything together. Matter will fuse, and slowly heat up--but the gravitational inertia will keep everything collapsing. The universe will get smaller and smaller, until it is infinitely dense and infinitessimaly small. Then, Boom! reversal point--big bang all over again.
Since everytime scientists try to explain the big bang, all they get is infinity--infinity is obviously the "mirror point". think about how a pinhome camrea works, and you can see how the mirror-point works. You can also see it in the crude diagram below.
><><><><><><><><>< <--Size
<><><><><><><><><> <--Density
Those two properites, showing the cycle the universe takes (within my perception), show that they are inversely related. When Size is infinitessimal, denisty is infinite; and when density is infinitessimal, size is infinite. And, further this by the proptery that in any system, no energy or matter is ever lost--the universe can cycle like this an infinite amount of times--it's fully cyclic, self-systaining, and the process always has been happening, and always will happen. There is no beginning, and no end--thus no creation.
God, in his absolute form, is this mechanism, and thus is everything--infinity. Again, if God is infinity, I cannot see how he can be what the bible says he is and have the capacity to judge--since judging negates being.
However; humans, as we are, perceive very little of Infinity. Most people havetroube with the 3rd dimension. Some can see into 4; very rarely does one have the ability to see beyond 6. And my conjecture is that diminsions, like the universe, are infinite. That being said, Beings beyond our comprehension can very well exist--and do from my perception, but are not "gods" in the manner that they are not omnipotent. They are fallible, finite, and in their own way are just like us--just a lot less so.
Anyhow, that's my stance on things, and explains, in a nut shell, why i cannot see the monotheistic dogmas as correct. Not saying they aren't, but that I cannot see them as. <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
another essay by the great Keeper... haha
Andazzo: for the record, I am Christian and I don't question the existence of God, only the validity of creation and some of the other Old Testament stories.
<br>
my proof is in my personal belief. it cannot be proven to anyone else who does not have the relationship with god as i do, just as AnDaZZo said. its not something we can prove with facts, only personal experiences/beliefs. <br>
12.6 @ 114.6 MPH
tribal religions had "proof" that their rain dances worked. because if they did them, it would rain. my great grandmother thought she has a science to telling what gender an unborn baby was, she had "proof" it worked and could recall many times where her necklace would move on way or another and all the times she was right. she however failed to recognize that she began with a fifty fifty shot at being right and also when a person recalled she was wrong she would question if they remembered right. she thought she had proof even though few believed her.
my point is personal proff is easy to come by and is only valid for yourself and trying to site that as enough reason for others to believe you is rediculous. if it helps you believe more power to you, but does "personal proof" belong in a debate? hardly.
<br>
.... and everytime i look within i recongnize the darkness; familiar to the image of the artist....
--Glowin Cavy-- wrote:god made us...period.
See, you're mistaking me. I have no argument with the fact that you believe that and that your proof for your stance is your personal experience. But, to come into a debate and state "god made us...period" as a fact, not as a personal truth--expect people to question that.
The truths you hold don't apply to everyone. Do i think that the preceding novella i wrote holds true to eveyone? No--it's just a statement of how I stand on things--and in my words i wrote it as such. It's my conjecture on reality as i percieve it--because i know I could not prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt to everyyoune.
Ditto on God creating all of us--it's a conjecture that to you, holds the most credibility, and to you, it's true. That i have no argument with, but don't state a personal truth as a universal fact because in a debate setting like this (and yes, i know that we will never get anywhere on this debate, but the mental excercize is fun), all facts will be questioned and will need proof to back it up.
<br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Ok, go to www.drdino.com and just have a good look around.
If you are actually interested in this AND have an open mind you will understand at least some of the stuff in there.
I was saved not too long ago so I see where all the evolutionists are coming from. I have watched all these movies. I used to be an evolutionist. Now that I understand the truth, I am a creationist. I'm not going to type out a story with all my supporting evidence. I have whats called FAITH. It doesn't need evidence. After reading some of these posts and seeing people say, "Well, I beleive this part of the Bible and not this part" etc, etc. I am seriously questioning how they can call themselves a Christian. If you do not believe the ENTIRE word of GOD- you are not a Christian. Sorry.
The above is my honest opinion. If it upsets you I'm sorry. The world is too quickly moving away from the Lord. It is getting worse every day and things like this just reinforce that fact.
I don't plan on posting again in this thread (despite the fact that its a debate forum) so don't bother flaming me out. <br>
man this thread has died..lets spice it up....
Jesus came to Earth. I'm sure his disciples and other people at the time had questions about the Old Testament and the creation of the world. Since Jesus stated that he is the son of God, he would have set the record straight. Since Jesus was proven to be a real person, even outside of Christianity, and was resurrected from the dead for 60 days before ascending to Heaven (proof being thousands of people saw him after they witnessed him being killed) and he states that God's word is true. How do we refute? Discuss....
<br>
Yeah, but the disciples also weren't written following Jesus around town like secretaries writing down what he said like Jesus said "take a memo". Much scripture was written after the fact and were not written by Jesus' hand himself. Also, you can look at your argument in my eyes too. What Middle eastern man in the 1st century would possibly comrehend even a fraction of the evolutionary explanation of the Universe's beginning? These are complex ideas, math, and science that wasn't even know in that area... I think the disciples would have found it easier to adapt a story like Gilgamesh (written earlier in fact and much the same story) to put in the Bible. How do u know parts of the Bible weren't made up?
The scientific evidence for creation is nonexistent... that web site posted above is nothing more than fundamentalist propaganda... they are saying evolution spawned Hitler, Stalin, Marx, etc. I didnt notice any convinced evidence against evolution except the beat to death "complexity argument", the "where did the matter come from argument", and all that.... couldn't God have created the Big Bang and evolution carried on from there? Couldmt God have created the first organic molecules and evolution carried on from there? I mean a few billion years from Earth's formation to simple life... plenty of time for chance... I also found the "recent" dinosaur pix kinda funny, they identified rotten carcasses of whales as plesiosaurs. Damn, don't u think they would anounce this shite on major news if they actually discovered plesiosaurs????? Give me a break, they died off a long time ago and they searched loch ness hundreds of times, they don't exist! Dinosaurs on the ark! hahahaha <br>
While i don't discount Jesus' existance...his resurrection i hold about as true as the people who see the virgin mary's face in a muffin. Even so...thousands of people see spectres day in and out, yet no one claims that those spectres, or their mortal personas had all the answers.
While enlightened, Jesus was not omnipotent. I don't belive he was the true son of god--just enlightened--at least more so than most of humanity.
The bible is not an accurate chronical, in that it's lessons were passed from word of mouth in the early stages and written down thereafter. THEN, it was translated into many of the different languages, and thus again, there is errors in the translation. Details are exaggerated, ommitted, and things embellished. It's a legend or myth based in truth--not a complete myth, but not a set-in-stone chronicle either.
As for creation and evolution--from my perspective, I don't see anything as created--I see it all as a transmogrification of something else prior. Since the universe is vast, infinte, and a dynamic equillibrium--all the end of a cycle means is the start of another one. And then, along that method, it means that all that is was and will be--just mabye not in the state that you think it is.
Still, back to the old argument:
Quote:
I have whats called FAITH. It doesn't need evidence.
Faith may work for you, but it doesn't work for me. Further, faith and truth are presonal--not absolute. I don't question your belief in this, but, you need to back it up with something more than "this is this way--you gotta have faith". Faith comes in many forms, and one person's answer is not everyone's answer. To you--you have all the evidence you need, but to me, to take a stance like that, you have to throw me a bit more meat to sink my teeth into.
However, i will answer one question from that site:
<I>*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?</i>
No, there was no "nothing" ever. From my perspective, nothing was created--again, ll there is was and will be--just not in the same state that it always has been. Saying that everything came from nothing to me, is erroneus, because the big bang was just a mirror point--see my above novella.
The paradox of my perspective that makes things hard to swallow for those that are creationists is this: There is no beginning and no end--we just keep passing the same spot over and over again--further, no matter how far i try to see out to see a beginning or an end, i end up right back where I started. Hence infinity. <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Quote:
The bible is not an accurate chronical, in that it's lessons were passed from word of mouth in the early stages and written down thereafter. THEN, it was translated into many of the different languages, and thus again, there is errors in the translation. Details are exaggerated, ommitted, and things embellished. It's a legend or myth based in truth--not a complete myth, but not a set-in-stone chronicle either.
Couldn't this be classified as "thats your opinion but you don't have any scientific evidence to back it up?" The New Testament was written during the same generation that Jesus lived in, up to 60 a.d. So the initial writings would have some validity even if they were word of mouth at first because the writings would be validated by the thousands who heard Jesus's actual teachings. Sure, maybe not word for word, but the general concepts would be the same, and unanimously agreed upon. And sure, it's easy to believe the translations could be changed over time, but do we really have any proof? Since society loves to be skeptical about things don't you think someone would try to come out and prove that the Bible has been changed? Though other languages have multiple meanings for words like English words, I'm sure someone in the past 2000 years would have come out publicly and stated this Bible translation is all wrong. However, there are biblical scholars, historians, and bilingual people throughout history who haven't yet said these versions of the Bible don't add up. Even scholars who understand the ancient hebrew, latin, and aramaic the first books were written in. So I accept your opinions that you don't believe things because there isn't concrete evidence, but many of your refuting points are nothing more than your opinion as well.
<br>
right...sorry about not stating that, i kinda got lost in myself and thought i made that mention.
However, i don't mean the translations are wrong, per se, but more garbled. From prehistoric to post-modern times, things are written in the modern dialect, and some idioms are always thrown in. Take the spanish term:
él me pateó en los huevos
Literally translates to "He kicked me in the eggs." However, translated into english taking into account for slang and idioms, one would know it means, "He kicked me in the nuts" (note, translations may be off--my spanish is REALLY rusty). When it comes to the languages used--and the timeframe of translations, many of those idioms as slang used will be mistranslated--not incorrect (i.e. the "40" days of rain and opposed to "Many" days of rain), but not wholly correct...IMHO.
I think of your stance is the fact that many people of the "scientific" community don't take it at it's face value because it's kind of an unwritten rule about anything chronicalling events this is sincerely out-of-date. There will be errors, and while it doesn't make it necessarily untrue, it doesn't make it etched-in-concrete right in my opinion.
The way i can liken this, is to take the newspaper clippings about the pedophile catholic priests, and then have them carried on form generation to generation, passed on in writing as such, and translated as english evolves and becomes extinct, and into other languages for 2000 years. I will bet you almost anything that, without knowledge of the catholics NOW as they are, just basing upon those articles, the Catholics would be villified--no mention of the good some catholics have done, like, say Mother Teresa.
Just my $.02 <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Yeah I took 8 years of Spanish so I fully understand where you're coming from on that one. Kinda like the "Tiene Leche?" ad that came out meaning "Are you lactating?" instead of Got Milk. But realize, you hardly know Spanish but you still are aware of some of the slang. People fluent in the language would know much more. It seems like you're saying that hardly fluent people are making the translations of the Bible, kinda like youself trying to translate the Bible into Spanish. You personally know some of the slang but not nearly all of it. The people who translate these texts are fully fluent in the languages, culture, and the slang. Not some American kid trying to translate something into a language in which he knows nothing about the culture. But even as such, a Spanish or Latino born person would easily chuckle at your bad translations if you were to state them as fact. Same goes for the translation of the Bible translated in other people's languages. Over the past 2000 years I'm sure someone would have red-flagged it by now, but I've never heard of such an incident. <br>
The thing is most people do not doubt the New Testament... they see it as the history of Jesus' life and beyond. Some people doubt the things Jesus did and the idea of Resurrection but I do not. I believe what is written in the New Testament for the most part.
It is the Old Testament, that predates Jesus and is a mix of fairytale-like stories and believable stories... it doesn't seem to have the same credibility when faced with modern science... the translation factor and the fact that these stories were written from oral tradition, makes their validity dubious.
<br>
But again I say, since Jesus was on the Earth, wouldn't he refute the Old Testament if he truly was the son of God? If humanity was following these books as law since they believed they were the word of God, wouldn't Jesus tell them to stop worshipping a blaspheming book? I highly doubt that Jesus would allow his followers to believe in a book if it did not truly convey God's message. But time and time again Jesus referred back to laws and stories of the Old Testament in his teachings, so in fact he was validating that they were true. And if he is indeed the son of God, he would know all of the stories since he is all knowing like God. The trinity is three separate parts of the same thing. Like stated in the Bible, and I know this is debateable, but Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Human in his experiences with sin, hunger, and love, Godly in his control over diseases, the ocean, and and other miracles. <br>
The thing is, Andazzo, it's not just fluent in the language and the culture, but the slang and isioms they used within a cultural subtext. Unfortunately, without having been there, no one has a reference point as to what the idioms and slang are. The reason i got that translation point is that it's a term used in the here and now. Case in point, go back about 100 years within humanity and it's not turn off the lights, it's put out the lights.
There will always be minor things within translations that are missed--even from professionals at this. Moreso, in many of the earlier portions of the last 2000 years, people had the non-questioning mindset, and took those translations as verbatim. Even over a course of 200 years, not to mention 2000, from one tranlation point to another, the meanings of said idioms and slang would be lost, because it's a translation of a translation.
Not saying that it makes the whole thing false, but to me and my perspective, it begs credibility. While important points are there, and probably in truth (Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, for example), others, are probably translations through errors and interpretations though eyes not-so-well-infromed. For instance, his resurrection could have been his spectre, but, to people with little knowledge on the subject, could write it down as his resurrection, and by the time that chronicle is his translation, it's written as verbatim, rather than as the best-grasp of what happened.
However, I wasn't there, so i can't say that's exactly what happened--nor could i be disproved that my conjecture couldn't be what happened--because no one else was there. <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
Well I've proved my point just in the fact that you've stated that anything is possible. That's all I was trying to get at. Sure, there are doubts about everything, and even today there are things we can't comprehend or explain. All I was focusing on was getting people not to discount things just because they don't understand. However, with the whole Jesus as a spectre thing, as far as what it states in the Bible, he was not as such. Mary touched him and felt the wounds that were from the nails in his hands, and he was present for the disiples to see and converse with. He did all of the natural things that humans did in the 60 day period after his resurrection; eat, sleep, which a ghost would not have to do. But as such, this is just what the Bible says and is subject to debate as is everything else we've discussed. But from what book it conveys he was indeed alive, not a spectre. <br>
People still seem to think that the Bible has been translated numerous times.. In a way it is true, but not the way many think. The contemporary Bibles of today were translated directly from the original text, not from a previous translation. Anchient Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin are not lost languages, and language scholars of today are aware of the slang etc that was used in period. Just as you know that put out the lights became turn off the lights, they know the ancient equivalents.. EG: I know a priest who is able to readf the Greek of Christ's time.. Not just the Greek that would be used in scholarly works, but also what he refers to as "Common street Greek". He is also versed in Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic.. Greek is his specialty though. Remember that the line of the 12 apostles has never been broken within the original church, and the teaching of the original 12 have been closely guarded. During the first 200 years, it was tough, but it got much better after the council of Nicea in (I think) 230AD. As far as language goes, ask any scholar (in the right field) and you will find that old English survives and is understood (It does not resemble what you would recognise as English), as well as about 4 forms of Latin.. Clasic, Vulgate, romance, and modern (for example). Just because it is old, that does not mean we cannot understand it.. The lay person cannot understand it, but those who are trained are trained well.. Even some previously lost languages have been ressurected (anchient Egyption for example).. Sanscrit is still in use (original Semetic language).. Blaa blaa blaa.. The point is that the Bible has not gone through a series of translations, each edition (that is worthwhile) has gone through only one translation, from original, to whatever the target is.. My favourite is still early modern English, it has a good rythm to it. Contemporary translations just don't have the same punch IMO.
Without the Old Testament, there would be no proof that Jesus is the Christ.. The 300 prophecies the Jesus (Jeshua) fullfilled had to be there in order to be understood. Also Christ refers to the old testament as reference many times. As Jonah was... So will I be.. Etc. etc. etc.
PAX
Oh ya Keeper... The universe is not infinte.. Proven, many times, get over it.
PAX
Show me the proof. <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
How can you prove the universe isn't infinite? While you cannot prove either, I would tend to believe that it being infinite seems most plausible to me, maybe not to you, which is okay. At any rate, I wouldn't mind seeing some evidence to support either stance. I'm leaving work; I'll see what I can dig up later.
entropy is not an end. I already went over that with my theory that if all nuclear fusion and all energy ceases--the only things that would be left is big-band inertia, the matter that comprises the universe, and because there is matter, gravity. The gravity would overcome the inertia, slowing down, and stopping the universe from expanding, and thus serring it back to crunch.
Doesn't matter how un-dense the universe would be at that point--taking away all active forms of energy--with only gravity (which is now thought of as a warp in space/time) and whatever inertia is left--even a gluon at the center of the universe would slow everything down--not to mention the gravity exerted by everything else. It would take an extremely long time though. <br>
Goodbye Callisto & Skaği, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.
How about the Divine proportion. If you measure the length from the bottom of your feet to the top of your head, then measure the length between your belly buttom and the bottom of your feet, make those to measurements in a ratio and that number will be 1.6181(if done with extreme accuracy) but other wise will be pretty close. The curcumfirence of a sunflower seed to the diameter has the same answer to that ratio, as well as many more both in natural and in the human body. So my argument to you is that if this Divine proportion is true, then that's pretty good envidence to that fact that there had to of been a creator. Most evolutionist will say that that creator doesn't have to be God but it's still pretty good evidence for creationism. <br>
<img src="http://www.j-body.org/registry/jive/thumbnail_x-mass02.jpg">
