| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dave e" |
| Date: |
07 Feb 2004 06:39:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
.
|
|
| User: "Marvin" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
07 Feb 2004 07:42:38 AM |
|
|
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com...
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in
message news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are
false!
In message
<7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship
Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh
Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those
churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't
believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant
baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches
that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all
churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as
a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
LOL. Between the two of you, it looks as if you've shot down
all religions that believe in a "savior." But when you speak
of false religions, you seem to imply that you believe there
is a true religion. Am I mistaken?
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
07 Feb 2004 08:31:32 AM |
|
|
(dave e) wrote in
news:10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com:
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
Can you show us any religion that isn't "false"?
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "dave e" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
08 Feb 2004 06:13:11 AM |
|
|
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message news:<Xns948861799DC63wodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
dgenglish@hotmail.com (dave e) wrote in
news:10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com:
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
Can you show us any religion that isn't "false"?
Come to think of it, no.
Dave
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doreen Cabot" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
07 Feb 2004 07:09:58 AM |
|
|
In message <10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com>, dave e
<dgenglish@hotmail.com> writes
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
You don't seem to leave much after your exhaustive list.
What direction are you coming from? Your listing is not clear for this.
--
Doreen C
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
08 Feb 2004 12:38:38 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 13:09:58 +0000, Doreen Cabot
<doreenc@onetel.net.uk> posted in alt.atheism:
You don't seem to leave much after your exhaustive list.
What direction are you coming from? Your listing is not clear for this.
It's clear as glass. For any Christian denomination, there's some
Christian denomination that considers that one false. And who would
know better than another Christian?
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: 6/2 JC was NOT the messiah! |
07 Feb 2004 12:05:19 PM |
|
|
Indeed dave e. The SPIRIT will lead you into all truth. ANY system that
man creates...usually has a motive behind it that you don't want to be
messed over by. For instance the RC group was nothing more than a
government that used Christianity as something to hide it's agenda behind!
By appointing "apostles" they could then say "oh look the bible says to
'follow the apostles teachings'. A thin deception, but by associating a lot
of symbology and setting up an 'in house' pseudo-priesthood....the system
found a powerful FULFILLMENT of HUMAN WEAKNESSES! A codependence formed.
These people basically set up an idolotrous image that would convince poor
saps that they were doing their religious duty by bowing down to it!!
Meanwhile, the SDA group had some funny prophecies during the clinton
administration. Their name means "revealing the seventh day". Not
revealing Jesus. Any time attention is diverted from the one who is to be
the entire focus...bad stuff happens. These people thought clinton was
going to invoke Sunday law! Yes...I thought it was pretty funny too. But
that's how confused and deluded people can get when they take their eyes off
Jesus and...focus on a day.
So many schemes to jerk weak humans around. Don't be had. Cry out to
dad. :-) -Bob
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com...
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
07 Feb 2004 09:17:20 PM |
|
|
PS..it's funny that this same thread title is going on in
rec.music.christian...but totally different followups of course! :-) I just
posted one noting how foolish the whole thread is as it's broken into
handwaving arguments about how old the texts in question really are, etc.
You might say "oh, so why is that stupid?" Well if you just sit back and
think, the really amazing thing that we CAN be sure of, is that the bible is
FULL of 'unsafe' statements. Statements that a person making up lies would
have eventually, as science progressed, been reavealed as what they were
through.
But...that isn't the way the story ends. I was noting how David,
without taking a physics class, recited the 2nd law of thermodynamics in
good layman's terms in Psalm 102 for instance. The bible is full of this
kind of thing! I heard someone noting a list of them on the radio the other
day. It's amazing! For all those 'out there' (considering the time they
were spoken) things...not a ONE of them was of the nature of the example I
gave, where david could have said 'The heavens are full of great beasts
which will devour anyone who reaches beyond the mountains to them'...or like
that. Something like that was BOUND to get said...if he was just making
stuff up. These ignorant people who flap their fingers in threads like
this...what can I say? TURN YOUR BRAINS ON PEOPLE! Think! The odds are
stinking astronomical that the bible would be passed down from the dates we
KNOW it to be passed down from! (worst case scenario) It preceeded all
scientific knowledge that would have disallowed the formation of such
statements in the mind of a fabricator! hehe. That...is the logical proof
my friends, that the bible is something to be considered and pondered
seriously for that reason if no other. Not mocked.
That is something that the mockers can't deal with. They will skirt
around it. I say if they won't deal with it, let's killfile them so that
they can troll each other. End of discussion for any purpose I can
see. -Bob
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:102aa4pk20g1ae2@corp.supernews.com...
Indeed dave e. The SPIRIT will lead you into all truth. ANY system that
man creates...usually has a motive behind it that you don't want to be
messed over by. For instance the RC group was nothing more than a
government that used Christianity as something to hide it's agenda behind!
By appointing "apostles" they could then say "oh look the bible says to
'follow the apostles teachings'. A thin deception, but by associating a
lot
of symbology and setting up an 'in house' pseudo-priesthood....the system
found a powerful FULFILLMENT of HUMAN WEAKNESSES! A codependence formed.
These people basically set up an idolotrous image that would convince poor
saps that they were doing their religious duty by bowing down to it!!
Meanwhile, the SDA group had some funny prophecies during the clinton
administration. Their name means "revealing the seventh day". Not
revealing Jesus. Any time attention is diverted from the one who is to be
the entire focus...bad stuff happens. These people thought clinton was
going to invoke Sunday law! Yes...I thought it was pretty funny too. But
that's how confused and deluded people can get when they take their eyes
off
Jesus and...focus on a day.
So many schemes to jerk weak humans around. Don't be had. Cry out
to
dad. :-) -Bob
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402070439.1b6933aa@posting.google.com...
Rev E Faith Cully <faith.cully@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:<AGm4M1Nyn$IAFwrB@ntlworld.com>...
What a load of total rubbish
Jesus is the ONLY true Saviour - all other religions are false!
In message <7332f93b.0402060352.47e6cd50@posting.google.com>, Eliyahu
Not only that, but many religions which claim to worship Jesus are
also false, including Catholics, Latter Day Saints, Seventh Day
Adventists, Liberal or mainstream protestants, those churches who
believe in speaking in tongues, those churches that don't believe in
speaking in tongues, those churches that practive infant baptism,
those churches that practice adult baptism, those churches that handle
snakes, those churches that don't handle snakes, and all churches
which encourage disobedience of the Biblical commandments as a means
of enforcing the Biblical commandments.
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. All of these are false religions.
Be careful who you follow.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "dave e" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
08 Feb 2004 07:41:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<102baggh7q1k332@corp.supernews.com>...
PS..it's funny that this same thread title is going on in
rec.music.christian...but totally different followups of course! :-) I just
posted one noting how foolish the whole thread is as it's broken into
handwaving arguments about how old the texts in question really are, etc.
You might say "oh, so why is that stupid?" Well if you just sit back and
think, the really amazing thing that we CAN be sure of, is that the bible is
FULL of 'unsafe' statements. Statements that a person making up lies would
have eventually, as science progressed, been reavealed as what they were
through.
But...that isn't the way the story ends. I was noting how David,
without taking a physics class, recited the 2nd law of thermodynamics in
good layman's terms in Psalm 102 for instance.
For those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
or at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay. It doesn't take a PhD in physics
(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
The greater achievement of science has been introducing the concept of
"entropy" (which is more rigorously defined than "decay") introducing
the concept of "closed" and "open" systems (which Psalm 102 doesn't
mention) and the discovery of means by which high-tech machinery,
developmental biology, and biological evolution are all possible
without violating any of the recognized laws of thermodynamics.
David's understanding of thermodynamics doesn't approach even an 18th
century understanding of the science, let alone a modern one. And
even if it had (which is unlikely to impossible) he didn't communicate
his knowledge in a way which made it accessible to further
experimentation or theoretical improvements. The second law of
thermodynamics wasn't formally introduced until 1834, by Clapeyron,
who specialized in designing steam engines. Clapeyron's discoveries
built on the knowledge of many scientists and engineers who came
before him. David (alleged author of Psalms) wasn't among them.
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
08 Feb 2004 06:29:59 PM |
|
|
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402080541.3da97274@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<102baggh7q1k332@corp.supernews.com>...
For those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
Look....I think you missed my intent there. By 'layman's terms' I mean the
words "entropy" "enthalpy" etc. weren't in their language nor did they have
anything of equivelent nature near as I'm aware! Thus when David said "The
heavens wear out like an old garmet"....that was REALLY good (considering
that most people in the physics departments today in ALL THEIR wisdom...seem
to think that all the real Christians thought that the heaven's were made of
the perfect eternal sphere's and so on. Hehehe. So..who's really ignorant
here? I'll tell you who. The REAL Christians believe that the heavens wear
out like an old garmet, which is, given the language available to David,
about as accurate a description of the 2nd law as possible.) !
or at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay.
Actually...few of them even know what it is.
It doesn't take a PhD in physics
(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
Huh. Well..maybe modern physicists will come out of the stone ages and
believe that all real Christians believed the truth all along then. Man's
CURRENT wisdom on all things is still incomplete. The smart ***** of
yesteryear is the fool of today. So...my ORIGINAL POINT isn't going to go
away you know..? That the bible is amazing because of all those types of
things that got said, NONE of them look as stupid today as a science text
written 100 years ago looks. Riiiggghhht? C'mon, let's here you agree. Do
you have disagreement with this point? Why is everyone out there to wimpy
to just agree with something so blatantly obvious?
1) DID not a lot of different people in the bible claim to have revelations
from God that related to things including the physical universe which the
science of their day did not necessarily support? (More recent history
PROVES that without good science man is going to wind up believing that the
starts are on these eternal spheres and stuff...)
2) In all other writings where people did this sort of thing DID THEY NOT
wind up SOMEWHERE saying something that is proveably WRONG in science
today!?
3) Isn't it, strange, odd, and rather unbelievable that if the bible was
spawned by a bunch of liars, that they didn't screw up like this SOMEWHERE?
The greater achievement of science has been introducing the concept of
"entropy" (which is more rigorously defined than "decay") introducing
the concept of "closed" and "open" systems (which Psalm 102 doesn't
mention)
"the heavens" sounds like pretty much everything. Yes his grammar did deal
with it. By definition what is...is. Infinity doesn't have mathmatical
meaning in terms of objects. An object either is...or it isn't. If it is,
then it can be counted. There is no limit to how big numbers can be. Thus,
the matter in the universe can be counted. Every proton, electron, muon,
BISON! All can be counted. Just that, they are too numerous and difficult
to track for anyone to actually do that. But still the mathmatical reality
is that. So, when he said 'heavens', he's technically and accurately
talking about a closed system.
Regardless..for it to be truth...Does he have to say everything? Does
he have to detail every aspect? Because, if so all of science has been a
lie for the past decades and obviously will continue to be. :-) Something's
always missing. We don't understand the nature of how light even propogates
though we understand the mathmatical relationship of how electric and
magnetic fields interact to a great degree, etc. But our understanding is
so pathetically incomplete. This is a silly path to pursue. I can see
nobody is going to deal with the FACT that the bible is full of RISKY
ASSERTIONS for the day it was done in (and HERETICAL ones even according to
the alledged church of much later days!!!) So....anyone who sits there
arguing the stuff I've seen here is just lost. That's all.
and the discovery of means by which high-tech machinery,
developmental biology, and biological evolution are all possible
without violating any of the recognized laws of thermodynamics.
David's understanding of thermodynamics doesn't approach even an 18th
century understanding of the science, let alone a modern one.
Hmmm. Yet it DOES exceed a 16th century one it appears. This is a
presumptuous statement though. How do YOU know what David understood? Just
because he didn't write it in the Psalms...you think he didn't know it? I
don't know what he knew. More hand waving stupid arguments. Deal with it.
What he said was TRUE. And that's more than I can say for a GOOD chunk of
what 'science' has taught through the ages. Science get's information from
raw observations and attempts to construct the most plausible theory to
explain such things. If you think back to the day before telescopes, one
can imagine how people came up with the models the supposed 'church' taught
as true. The 'church' that like the one of today is too busy or hindered to
read it's own text! :-) What is untrue about an analogy between a piece of
clothing wearing out and entropy? Given the audience he was addressing, I'm
not sure I'd have said it any different! If you or I had started talking
nerdese to them they have fallen asleep! :-) Boy, you and me..we oughta
party dude. Hehehe.
And
even if it had (which is unlikely to impossible) he didn't communicate
his knowledge in a way which made it accessible to further
experimentation or theoretical improvements. The second law of
thermodynamics wasn't formally introduced until 1834, by Clapeyron,
Uhh...yeah I remember some other names from back there. Why doesn't
Clapeyron ring a bell right now? Things like "Carnot Cycle" and so forth
start coming to mind with my photographic memory recollections of the
physics text pages :-). I have a degree in Science Ed...all but one
sequence of a physics degree and years of engineering experience. I deal
with the realities of physics on a daily basis and make a living off knowing
them well. Names never interested me much though.
who specialized in designing steam engines. Clapeyron's discoveries
built on the knowledge of many scientists and engineers who came
before him. David (alleged author of Psalms) wasn't among them.
What a strange statement. Look at the history of scientific development.
Most of the significant developments have come in the past few decades
really. But the light JUSt started turning on about the time these people
were doing things 150 to 200 years ago! David was...like 1000BC!!!
That's....3000 years ago!! Good grief. Ya know...back in Jr. high science,
we started making these things called "graphs" and "Plots" a lot. No I'm
not talking about the kind of plot the people who write to this ng are
trying to concoct. Take a piece of graph paper (linear). Draw a line that
represents the NUMBER of significant and well proven facts known about the
physical universe. If you start at 1000BC, you will see that at least in
this culture, a bunch were known. Noooo not near as many as today for
sure. But a bunch. And...they're all still true! Amazing! Ok, now as
your plot moves onward and you begin to incorporate all of humanity we see
the number of things actually PLUMMET as false things take the place of
things like this. :-) Then...all the sudden some people stand up for their
freedom to worship God and a nation called "America" forms and people are
finally free to think and other nations get jealous and start allowing some
freedom themselves and voila! BOOOM!
Face it. Before America was set up with it's principles which respected
all people (though it has often not been followed in practise by people with
their own agendas..) as creations of a loving God IN WHOM WE TRUST it says
on our currency still..thank you.... there really wasn't another signifcant
government that wasn't "by the few, for the few"!!!!! Well the British were
weakening in it and vearing that way themselves, and many Europeon nations.
Creativity happened in any case when people's thoughts weren't constantly
either consumed with how they could keep deceiving the masses OR with how
much they hated those in power! Other nations took that success and
perverted it in their own way like Germany. And oh yeah they made lots of
developments; mostly documented along the way to trying to find a better way
to kill people. :-). I'm German. It's ok to make fun of one's own heritage
isn't it?
Anyway, that's history. Those who associate themselves with the ways of
this God seem to have an edge in technological development and science...and
clear thinking in general. Of course, that could have to do with the fact
that without a relationship with God, one's tendency is to do what SEEMS
best for themself. In doing so, lying is a natural thing. Once a lie is
spawned it occupies the mind's resources and eventually makes the person so
they are so encumbered they can't really think too straight. -Bob
Dave
.
|
|
|
| User: "dave e" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
09 Feb 2004 07:30:59 AM |
|
|
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message news:<102dl4mq9o8b37d@corp.supernews.com>...
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402080541.3da97274@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<102baggh7q1k332@corp.supernews.com>...
For those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
Look....I think you missed my intent there. By 'layman's terms' I mean the
words "entropy" "enthalpy" etc. weren't in their language nor did they have
anything of equivelent nature near as I'm aware! Thus when David said "The
heavens wear out like an old garmet"....that was REALLY good (considering
that most people in the physics departments today in ALL THEIR wisdom...seem
to think that all the real Christians thought that the heaven's were made of
the perfect eternal sphere's and so on. Hehehe. So..who's really ignorant
here? I'll tell you who. The REAL Christians believe that the heavens wear
out like an old garmet, which is, given the language available to David,
about as accurate a description of the 2nd law as possible.) !
Making it an incomplete (and hence inaccurate) description of the 2nd
law.
By the way, you have a bad habit of cutting my message in the middle
of sentences, and commenting on only part of what I said. Please note
below that I allowed for the fact that David's description of the 2nd
law was incomplete.
or at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay.
Actually...few of them even know what it is.
It doesn't take a PhD in physics
(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
Huh. Well..maybe modern physicists will come out of the stone ages and
believe that all real Christians believed the truth all along then. Man's
CURRENT wisdom on all things is still incomplete. The smart ***** of
yesteryear is the fool of today. So...my ORIGINAL POINT isn't going to go
away you know..? That the bible is amazing because of all those types of
things that got said, NONE of them look as stupid today as a science text
written 100 years ago looks. Riiiggghhht? C'mon, let's here you agree. Do
you have disagreement with this point? Why is everyone out there to wimpy
to just agree with something so blatantly obvious?
1) DID not a lot of different people in the bible claim to have revelations
from God that related to things including the physical universe which the
science of their day did not necessarily support? (More recent history
PROVES that without good science man is going to wind up believing that the
starts are on these eternal spheres and stuff...)
2) In all other writings where people did this sort of thing DID THEY NOT
wind up SOMEWHERE saying something that is proveably WRONG in science
today!?
3) Isn't it, strange, odd, and rather unbelievable that if the bible was
spawned by a bunch of liars, that they didn't screw up like this SOMEWHERE?
Note that I didn't cut your message in the middle of a sentence,
though I was sorely tempted to. No, I won't admit that the Bible is
full of information which was eventually confirmed by science. I will
admit that the Bible is full of stories (Global flood, Young Earth
Creationism and more) which have been solidly disproven by science.
And that the Bible also contains a few correct (but simple)
observations of the natural world, but no more impressive than
observations of the natural world which were made and recorded by
other tribes of primitive people around the world, without alleged
divine revelation.
Dave
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
09 Feb 2004 11:57:39 AM |
|
|
Dave...your ENGLISH is BREAKING DOWN. There's nothing 'inaccurate' about
making an analogy. "incomplete" as I said, describes MOST of our
understanding of science. Are you so arrogant as to say that our
understanding and portrayal of all the aspects relating to entropy is
COMPLETE! Gimme a break!
David's description was COMPLETE IN WHAT IS WAS INTENDED TO DO. Read it.
It contrasts the things...even the "heavenly things" which as I say other
religious people through history have tended to classify as in a different
class...yet..by some supernatural insight David knew that they were of the
SAME nature...(C'mon Dave e....that's kind of significant isn't it? Given
that he could have said something stupid here like other religious people
did?? C'mon. That's the point I'm making, right? Let's agree on the
point. THen we can vear off topic all we want. I don't care. I probably
won't even watch :-) ) WITH the 'word of the lord'. He says that will
remain and not decay. The stuff even in the 'heavens' WILL decay and wear
out. What a wonderful insight for a man who had no ability scientifically
to prove that. Do you think people like those writing to this newsgroup
mocked him for saying that for centuries?? Of course they did. And now we
all know they were fools and David was correct.
How correct was he? When a garmet wears out, it does so because of
interaction with itself and other things. This is what the universe is
doing. As photons and other 'particles' interact, there is an overall
degenerative trend towards less orderly constructs.
Logic dictates that IF the 2nd law is really correct, and has never
changed....then there is a time T=0 where that process was SET INTO PLACE.
Are you aware of this Dave e? Some people haven't thought that far. Ya
know, if everything trends towards disorder, and there is NO T=0...then we
are technically at T=infinity right now...always have been :-) So...logic
just kicks ***** don't it? You've built your life's philosophy on some
shallow fallacies. Meanwhile you still didn't deal below with the
ASTOUNDING fact that this ....'book of stories'...has no blatant errors in
it. If you think 'old earth' has been solidly proven....there's not much
point in talking. But FYI...the grammar of Genesis is pretty clear. That
first day remember?? The...earth wasn't spinning yet Dave. So since to the
Lord a day is as a thousand years, etc....that day lacking a point of
reference as we know days...could have been any length of time. Ok? You've
obviously been believing the hype of pseudo-research. Try....learning stuff
from the ROOT level Dave. When people hit you with stuff that is based on
presumption...then you'll quickly be able to discard it from the FACTS
drawer. Amazing how that clears one's perspective. :-) -Bob
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402090530.6a030f39@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<102dl4mq9o8b37d@corp.supernews.com>...
"dave e" <dgenglish@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:10ffa4e4.0402080541.3da97274@posting.google.com...
"Bob Weigel" <soundodoctorin@mfire.com> wrote in message
news:<102baggh7q1k332@corp.supernews.com>...
For those who don't know, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that
entropy tends to increase, over time, in a closed system.
In most cases, the layman's understanding of the second law is wrong,
Look....I think you missed my intent there. By 'layman's terms' I mean
the
words "entropy" "enthalpy" etc. weren't in their language nor did they
have
anything of equivelent nature near as I'm aware! Thus when David said
"The
heavens wear out like an old garmet"....that was REALLY good
(considering
that most people in the physics departments today in ALL THEIR
wisdom...seem
to think that all the real Christians thought that the heaven's were
made of
the perfect eternal sphere's and so on. Hehehe. So..who's really
ignorant
here? I'll tell you who. The REAL Christians believe that the heavens
wear
out like an old garmet, which is, given the language available to David,
about as accurate a description of the 2nd law as possible.) !
Making it an incomplete (and hence inaccurate) description of the 2nd
law.
By the way, you have a bad habit of cutting my message in the middle
of sentences, and commenting on only part of what I said. Please note
below that I allowed for the fact that David's description of the 2nd
law was incomplete.
or at least incomplete. The layman recognizes the second law as
having something to do with decay.
Actually...few of them even know what it is.
It doesn't take a PhD in physics
(or revelation from God) to observe that most things decay over time.
David makes that observation in Psalm 102.
Huh. Well..maybe modern physicists will come out of the stone ages and
believe that all real Christians believed the truth all along then.
Man's
CURRENT wisdom on all things is still incomplete. The smart ***** of
yesteryear is the fool of today. So...my ORIGINAL POINT isn't going to
go
away you know..? That the bible is amazing because of all those types
of
things that got said, NONE of them look as stupid today as a science
text
written 100 years ago looks. Riiiggghhht? C'mon, let's here you agree.
Do
you have disagreement with this point? Why is everyone out there to
wimpy
to just agree with something so blatantly obvious?
1) DID not a lot of different people in the bible claim to have
revelations
from God that related to things including the physical universe which
the
science of their day did not necessarily support? (More recent history
PROVES that without good science man is going to wind up believing that
the
starts are on these eternal spheres and stuff...)
2) In all other writings where people did this sort of thing DID THEY
NOT
wind up SOMEWHERE saying something that is proveably WRONG in science
today!?
3) Isn't it, strange, odd, and rather unbelievable that if the bible was
spawned by a bunch of liars, that they didn't screw up like this
SOMEWHERE?
Note that I didn't cut your message in the middle of a sentence,
though I was sorely tempted to. No, I won't admit that the Bible is
full of information which was eventually confirmed by science. I will
admit that the Bible is full of stories (Global flood, Young Earth
Creationism and more) which have been solidly disproven by science.
And that the Bible also contains a few correct (but simple)
observations of the natural world, but no more impressive than
observations of the natural world which were made and recorded by
other tribes of primitive people around the world, without alleged
divine revelation.
Dave
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ariaan" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
09 Feb 2004 01:17:49 PM |
|
|
Bob Weigel wrote:
Dave...your ENGLISH is BREAKING DOWN. There's nothing 'inaccurate'
about making an analogy. "incomplete" as I said, describes MOST of
our understanding of science. Are you so arrogant as to say that our
understanding and portrayal of all the aspects relating to entropy is
COMPLETE! Gimme a break!
David's description was COMPLETE IN WHAT IS WAS INTENDED TO DO.
Read it. It contrasts the things...even the "heavenly things" which
as I say other religious people through history have tended to
classify as in a different class...yet..by some supernatural insight
David knew that they were of the SAME nature...(C'mon Dave
e....that's kind of significant isn't it? Given that he could have
said something stupid here like other religious people did?? C'mon.
That's the point I'm making, right? Let's agree on the point. THen
we can vear off topic all we want. I don't care. I probably won't
even watch :-) ) WITH the 'word of the lord'. He says that will
remain and not decay. The stuff even in the 'heavens' WILL decay and
wear out. What a wonderful insight for a man who had no ability
scientifically to prove that. Do you think people like those writing
to this newsgroup mocked him for saying that for centuries?? Of
course they did. And now we all know they were fools and David
was correct. How correct was he? When a garmet wears out, it does so
because of interaction with itself and other things. This is what
the universe is doing. As photons and other 'particles' interact,
there is an overall degenerative trend towards less orderly
constructs. Logic dictates that IF the 2nd law is really correct, and
has never changed....then there is a time T=0 where that process was
SET INTO PLACE. Are you aware of this Dave e? Some people haven't
thought that far. Ya know, if everything trends towards disorder,
and there is NO T=0...then we are technically at T=infinity right
now...always have been :-) So...logic just kicks ***** don't it?
You've built your life's philosophy on some shallow fallacies.
Meanwhile you still didn't deal below with the ASTOUNDING fact that
this ....'book of stories'...has no blatant errors in it. If you
think 'old earth' has been solidly proven....there's not much point
in talking. But FYI...the grammar of Genesis is pretty clear. That
first day remember?? The...earth wasn't spinning yet Dave. So since
to the Lord a day is as a thousand years, etc....that day lacking a
point of reference as we know days...could have been any length of
time. Ok? You've obviously been believing the hype of
pseudo-research. Try....learning stuff from the ROOT level Dave.
When people hit you with stuff that is based on presumption...then
you'll quickly be able to discard it from the FACTS drawer. Amazing
how that clears one's perspective. :-) -Bob
Hey hey hey, you're abusing that "one day is..." statement.
Come on, if God has said 'one (1) day' then He obviously meant a 24 hour
earth day, and not some weird sort of day in His place where time doesn't
even exist. Time is for our dimension, so God was speaking in our terms of
time. And why should He not; because people can't grasp that the dino thing
doesn't necessarily have to interfere with a 144 hour creation time?
Ariaan
snip<
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
10 Feb 2004 12:27:07 AM |
|
|
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:P2RVb.498801$_x2.1072976@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
Hey hey hey, you're abusing that "one day is..." statement.
Come on, if God has said 'one (1) day' then He obviously meant a 24 hour
Listen. I'm not abusing anything. YOU are adding to the bible because
1) a 24 hour day DID NOT EXIST during the time this day was recorded to have
been.
2) Time is irrelevant to God. He could have done it in an earth MINUTE for
all we know. Or thousands of years. Or millions of years. FACT
remains...the day WAS truly figurative because there was no rotating earthy
by which to reference the event at the time. By definition...the time frame
was arbitrary.
DID THE BIBLE SAY "this was, by the way, an amount of time ON a physical
clock correlated to the earths rotational period of a day which was soon to
be.
Furthermore....there's nothing to say the Lord didn't fool with the rotation
rate as he was building the earth. He's God. He can do anything he wants.
Except lie. HAD he said what I said above, then yes. But as it is, we are
in full knowledge that there was no such thing AS an earth day when he
reported this 'day'. And a day is to the Lord as 1000 years...and that's
the only time reference we have to go by according to HIS word. This is
all...according to your word. So...drop it
earth day, and not some weird sort of day in His place where time doesn't
why are you calling God's way of keeping time 'weird'. Maybe he thinks
yours is weird. :-) If he wants a day to be 1000 years...are you going to
argue with him? Hello?
even exist. Time is for our dimension, so God was speaking in our terms of
time. And why should He not; because people can't grasp that the dino
thing
Ya mean...like dino from the flintstones? can't recall what that is..
doesn't necessarily have to interfere with a 144 hour creation time?
There are many places in the bible where things are very confusing to people
who say "obviously it means" and then throw in their own assumption. PURE
interpretations do not add to the word of God. Follow? You added. You
said 24 hours. He didn't relate the event to earth days because one didn't
exist at the time. . -Bob
Ariaan
snip<
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ariaan" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
10 Feb 2004 03:28:11 PM |
|
|
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:P2RVb.498801$_x2.1072976@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
Hey hey hey, you're abusing that "one day is..." statement.
Come on, if God has said 'one (1) day' then He obviously meant a 24
hour
Listen. I'm not abusing anything. YOU are adding to the bible
because
1) a 24 hour day DID NOT EXIST during the time this day was recorded
to have been.
2) Time is irrelevant to God. He could have done it in an earth
MINUTE for all we know. Or thousands of years. Or millions of
years. FACT remains...the day WAS truly figurative because there was
no rotating earthy by which to reference the event at the time. By
definition...the time frame was arbitrary.
DID THE BIBLE SAY "this was, by the way, an amount of time ON a
physical clock correlated to the earths rotational period of a day
which was soon to be.
God specifically named it 'day', in relation with 'evening' and 'morning'.
"... And the evening and the morning were the first day. ..."
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that this would not have been a normal 24 hour
day?
Furthermore....there's nothing to say the Lord didn't fool with the
rotation rate as he was building the earth. He's God. He can do
anything he wants. Except lie. HAD he said what I said above, then
yes. But as it is, we are in full knowledge that there was no such
thing AS an earth day when he reported this 'day'. And a day is to
the Lord as 1000 years...and that's the only time reference we have
to go by according to HIS word. This is all...according to your
word. So...drop it
Ehm, _no_. So He could have fooled with the rotation rate, but not create
things in a normal day, even when He says He did? Because a day is a day is
a normal 24 hour earth day. Why call a period of time a 'day' when it isn't
what we know as a day? If it wasn't a day, He might as well have called it
something else. But He didn't. So...
"... God can do anything He wants ..."? Exactly. Including creating things
in a 24 hour day before the sun and the moon were even there. And exactly
what would fooling with the rotation rate accomplish in a universe that is
empty?
earth day, and not some weird sort of day in His place where time
doesn't
why are you calling God's way of keeping time 'weird'. Maybe he
thinks yours is weird. :-) If he wants a day to be 1000 years...are
you going to argue with him? Hello?
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as
a thief in the night; ...
Read it in context. It might have said "100 million years", but that still
doesn't support your argument. Because Peter doesn't say this to state the
length of a day in Heaven, but to indicate that all suffering is just
temporary and that Christ _will_ return when it is time.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it
is past, and as a watch in the night.
Here David didn't say a day was 1000 years, it was just for poetical reasons
and to make people think that God is not bound by our notion of time (if
there is such a thing as a 'day' in a place outside our space and time).
So, I think we can safely stick with a 24 hour creation day. Safely; whe
_should_! Because with the adding of the 'evening' and 'morning' God has put
that 'day' in _our_ notion of time, which makes is a 24 hour earth day.
even exist. Time is for our dimension, so God was speaking in our
terms of time. And why should He not; because people can't grasp
that the dino thing
Ya mean...like dino from the flintstones? can't recall what that is..
Oh, that would be the ones you hit over the head
with a plastic club that goes "beep". :-)
doesn't necessarily have to interfere with a 144 hour creation time?
There are many places in the bible where things are very confusing to
people who say "obviously it means" and then throw in their own
assumption. PURE interpretations do not add to the word of God.
Follow? You added. You said 24 hours. He didn't relate the event
to earth days because one didn't exist at the time. . -Bob
I don't add, I interpret. With an eye on the context.
Ariaan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
10 Feb 2004 11:43:50 PM |
|
|
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:T1cWb.518526$_x2.1109192@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
God specifically named it 'day', in relation with 'evening' and 'morning'.
You say this like...you think I didn't know this or something. Obviously I
know this. Right? READ CAREFULLY GENESIS 1 -5 with me and let me detail
what I'm observing in EACH verse with regard to chronological time..ok?
1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ok...he did something here. Something fairly significant. He created the
entire universe including the earth. I dare say...it might have taken some
time. I don't know how much...but..one thing is for sure....
2- And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of
the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
Nothing regarding time here...
3- Then god said 'let there be light, and there was light'.
OOOkay. NOW mornings and evenings are possible. The sun was created
apparently at this point. AND TO PROVE my POINT..... verses 4 AND 5...
4- And God saw that the light was good; and god separated the light from the
darkness
Obviously with respect to the surface of the waters which he previously
spoke of with regard to his spirit's movement. Hence THIS was also an ACTION
of God. HOW did he 'separate' the light/darkness in the context we are
talking? Well...duh. He started the EARTH MOVING IN ROTATION. Before
this, the earth wasn't rotating. Why would it be? God had just formed it.
He formed it and set it into place in the heavens as he did all other
things! He is the creator! There is no big bang! No stupid explanations
of 1 in a googol odds collisions that happen to result in 8 near circular
orbiting bodies (pluto's orbit isn't near circular...I get more stupid
people thinking I'm so ignorant that I don't know there are more than 8
recognized planets :-) ) no. A God who precisely DESIGNED this as an
artist designs his work! Praise be to the God who has created all things
forever and ever!
Now,
5- And God called the light day, and and the darkenss he called night. And
there was evening and morning; one day.
OK! So you see, God did MUCH stuff BEFORE THE EARTH WAS EVEN ROTATING.
While we refer to this all as 'the first day of
creation'...technically...God was moonlighting...errr...there was no
moonlight either...ok he was starlighting possibly LONG before the morning
of the first day. GOT IT? I don't see why people don't get this kind of
stuff. It's so elementary and crud it's in the first FIVE VERSES OF
GENESIS! People need to quit messing around and dig into the bible and
understand it ALL with this kind of simplicity. Stop adding to it. Where
did you get the crazy idea that the creation of the universe occurred AFTER
THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY! THE TEXT BLATANTLY TELLS YOU YOU ARE
WRONG> Let's move on shall we? -Bob
"... And the evening and the morning were the first day. ..."
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that this would not have been a normal 24
hour
day?
Furthermore....there's nothing to say the Lord didn't fool with the
rotation rate as he was building the earth. He's God. He can do
anything he wants. Except lie. HAD he said what I said above, then
yes. But as it is, we are in full knowledge that there was no such
thing AS an earth day when he reported this 'day'. And a day is to
the Lord as 1000 years...and that's the only time reference we have
to go by according to HIS word. This is all...according to your
word. So...drop it
Ehm, _no_. So He could have fooled with the rotation rate, but not create
things in a normal day, even when He says He did? Because a day is a day
is
a normal 24 hour earth day. Why call a period of time a 'day' when it
isn't
what we know as a day? If it wasn't a day, He might as well have called it
something else. But He didn't. So...
"... God can do anything He wants ..."? Exactly. Including creating things
in a 24 hour day before the sun and the moon were even there. And exactly
what would fooling with the rotation rate accomplish in a universe that is
empty?
earth day, and not some weird sort of day in His place where time
doesn't
why are you calling God's way of keeping time 'weird'. Maybe he
thinks yours is weird. :-) If he wants a day to be 1000 years...are
you going to argue with him? Hello?
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day
is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness;
but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but
that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come
as
a thief in the night; ...
Read it in context. It might have said "100 million years", but that still
doesn't support your argument. Because Peter doesn't say this to state the
length of a day in Heaven, but to indicate that all suffering is just
temporary and that Christ _will_ return when it is time.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when
it
is past, and as a watch in the night.
Here David didn't say a day was 1000 years, it was just for poetical
reasons
and to make people think that God is not bound by our notion of time (if
there is such a thing as a 'day' in a place outside our space and time).
So, I think we can safely stick with a 24 hour creation day. Safely; whe
_should_! Because with the adding of the 'evening' and 'morning' God has
put
that 'day' in _our_ notion of time, which makes is a 24 hour earth day.
even exist. Time is for our dimension, so God was speaking in our
terms of time. And why should He not; because people can't grasp
that the dino thing
Ya mean...like dino from the flintstones? can't recall what that is..
Oh, that would be the ones you hit over the head
with a plastic club that goes "beep". :-)
doesn't necessarily have to interfere with a 144 hour creation time?
There are many places in the bible where things are very confusing to
people who say "obviously it means" and then throw in their own
assumption. PURE interpretations do not add to the word of God.
Follow? You added. You said 24 hours. He didn't relate the event
to earth days because one didn't exist at the time. . -Bob
I don't add, I interpret. With an eye on the context.
Ariaan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ariaan" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
11 Feb 2004 04:04:49 PM |
|
|
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:T1cWb.518526$_x2.1109192@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
God specifically named it 'day', in relation with 'evening' and
'morning'.
You say this like...you think I didn't know this or something.
Obviously I know this. Right? READ CAREFULLY GENESIS 1 -5 with me
and let me detail what I'm observing in EACH verse with regard to
chronological time..ok?
1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ok...he did something here. Something fairly significant. He
created the entire universe including the earth. I dare say...it
might have taken some time. I don't know how much...but..one thing is
for sure....
2- And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the
surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the
surface of the waters.
Nothing regarding time here...
3- Then god said 'let there be light, and there was light'.
OOOkay. NOW mornings and evenings are possible. The sun was created
apparently at this point. AND TO PROVE my POINT..... verses 4 AND
5...
4- And God saw that the light was good; and god separated the light
from the darkness
Obviously with respect to the surface of the waters which he
previously spoke of with regard to his spirit's movement. Hence THIS
was also an ACTION of God. HOW did he 'separate' the light/darkness
in the context we are talking? Well...duh. He started the EARTH
MOVING IN ROTATION. Before this, the earth wasn't rotating. Why
would it be? God had just formed it. He formed it and set it into
place in the heavens as he did all other things! He is the creator!
There is no big bang! No stupid explanations of 1 in a googol odds
collisions that happen to result in 8 near circular orbiting bodies
(pluto's orbit isn't near circular...I get more stupid people
thinking I'm so ignorant that I don't know there are more than 8
recognized planets :-) ) no. A God who precisely DESIGNED this as
an artist designs his work! Praise be to the God who has created all
things forever and ever! Now,
5- And God called the light day, and and the darkenss he called
night. And there was evening and morning; one day.
OK! So you see, God did MUCH stuff BEFORE THE EARTH WAS EVEN
ROTATING. While we refer to this all as 'the first day of
creation'...technically...God was moonlighting...errr...there was no
moonlight either...ok he was starlighting possibly LONG before the
morning of the first day. GOT IT? I don't see why people don't get
this kind of stuff. It's so elementary and crud it's in the first
FIVE VERSES OF GENESIS! People need to quit messing around and dig
into the bible and understand it ALL with this kind of simplicity.
Stop adding to it. Where did you get the crazy idea that the creation
of the universe occurred AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY!
THE TEXT BLATANTLY TELLS YOU YOU ARE WRONG> Let's move on shall we?
-Bob
_No_. You claim to know what it says in Genesis, yet you deny what it says
in the next few verses a little farther down the page:
[...] And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [...]
So what we have here, _three days after_ the creation of light, is the
creation of the celestial bodies, the sun and the moon and the stars. On day
one God created light, and made a separation between light and darkness and
day and night. Three days later He creates the solar system, the stars and
the sun and the moon etc. So they were obviously _not_ created on day one,
together with the light. Therefore the universe was _empty_ on day one,
removing all reason for the earth to be rotating to separate day from night.
Because rotating wouldn't do any good, with respect to the day/night
separation. Because the sun, the moon and the stars had not yet been
created.
Now, the big question is obviously: what was that light, and how come there
was already a 'day' and 'night' distinction on day one? That's not an easy
question, but I will try to give a believable answer.
First, apparently it was important to God to have all things created in time
spans of days, in a period of one week. A possible reason for this might be
the natural order He was going to create, especially with regard to the
earth's place in the solar system. That would yield the time division of
days and weeks and months we are familiar with now. This natural order would
require a good separation of that time in smaller periods in which creatures
would work and in which creatures would rest, resulting in the day/night
distinction. So with that in mind, God set out to start His creation
process, divided over periods of earth days. (Apparently working six days
and resting the seventh is a healthy system.)
The first thing that has to be created, in order for things to really work,
is light. So that was made, and immediately ordered to be separated from the
dark, so that the those two would each have their own function and time, as
would be important for the rest of the creation. Where did that light come
from then, if there wasn't a sun to emit it? The only thing I can think of
is that it was just there, as a created concept if you will, temporarily in
place until the actual source would take over, the physical light sources,
i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars. Also, there is that significant text
in Revelation, which tells us that the physical things are not necessarily
the only source of light.
Revelation 21:23
.... And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in
it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.
....
So here we see a possible explanation for the light on the first day: God's
very presence could have lit the earth, after He had created the concept.
Also note the fact that everything begins with light and according to
Revelation will also 'end' with light. This could be seen as an indication
that God, who is Light, is the beginning and the end of all things, as is
said in so many places throughout the Bible. Without God, there is no light,
and without God, there is no Life. This beginning of everything with light
is an indication that our beginning lies in God.
Okay, do I need to go on? I think it's quite clear now that your
interpretation doesn't comply with the rest of Genesis.
"... And the evening and the morning were the first day. ..."
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that this would not have been a normal
24 hour day?
Furthermore....there's nothing to say the Lord didn't fool with the
rotation rate as he was building the earth. He's God. He can do
anything he wants. Except lie. HAD he said what I said above, then
yes. But as it is, we are in full knowledge that there was no such
thing AS an earth day when he reported this 'day'. And a day is to
the Lord as 1000 years...and that's the only time reference we have
to go by according to HIS word. This is all...according to your
word. So...drop it
Ehm, _no_. So He could have fooled with the rotation rate, but not
create things in a normal day, even when He says He did? Because a
day is a day is a normal 24 hour earth day. Why call a period of
time a 'day' when it isn't what we know as a day? If it wasn't a
day, He might as well have called it something else. But He didn't.
So... "... God can do anything He wants ..."? Exactly. Including
creating things in a 24 hour day before the sun and the moon were
even there. And exactly what would fooling with the rotation rate
accomplish in a universe that is empty?
earth day, and not some weird sort of day in His place where time
doesn't
why are you calling God's way of keeping time 'weird'. Maybe he
thinks yours is weird. :-) If he wants a day to be 1000 years...are
you going to argue with him? Hello?
2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that
one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years
as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some
men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing
that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; ...
Read it in context. It might have said "100 million years", but that
still doesn't support your argument. Because Peter doesn't say this
to state the length of a day in Heaven, but to indicate that all
suffering is just temporary and that Christ _will_ return when it is
time.
Psalms 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday
when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
Here David didn't say a day was 1000 years, it was just for poetical
reasons and to make people think that God is not bound by our notion
of time (if there is such a thing as a 'day' in a place outside our
space and time).
So, I think we can safely stick with a 24 hour creation day. Safely;
whe _should_! Because with the adding of the 'evening' and 'morning'
God has put that 'day' in _our_ notion of time, which makes is a 24
hour earth day.
even exist. Time is for our dimension, so God was speaking in our
terms of time. And why should He not; because people can't grasp
that the dino thing
Ya mean...like dino from the flintstones? can't recall what that
is..
Oh, that would be the ones you hit over the head
with a plastic club that goes "beep". :-)
doesn't necessarily have to interfere with a 144 hour creation
time?
There are many places in the bible where things are very confusing
to people who say "obviously it means" and then throw in their own
assumption. PURE interpretations do not add to the word of God.
Follow? You added. You said 24 hours. He didn't relate the event
to earth days because one didn't exist at the time. . -Bob
I don't add, I interpret. With an eye on the context.
Ariaan
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Weigel" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
12 Feb 2004 01:32:06 AM |
|
|
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:bGxWb.532494$_x2.1135171@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:T1cWb.518526$_x2.1109192@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
God specifically named it 'day', in relation with 'evening' and
'morning'.
You say this like...you think I didn't know this or something.
Obviously I know this. Right? READ CAREFULLY GENESIS 1 -5 with me
and let me detail what I'm observing in EACH verse with regard to
chronological time..ok?
1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ok...he did something here. Something fairly significant. He
created the entire universe including the earth. I dare say...it
might have taken some time. I don't know how much...but..one thing is
for sure....
2- And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the
surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the
surface of the waters.
Nothing regarding time here...
3- Then god said 'let there be light, and there was light'.
OOOkay. NOW mornings and evenings are possible. The sun was created
apparently at this point. AND TO PROVE my POINT..... verses 4 AND
5...
4- And God saw that the light was good; and god separated the light
from the darkness
Obviously with respect to the surface of the waters which he
previously spoke of with regard to his spirit's movement. Hence THIS
was also an ACTION of God. HOW did he 'separate' the light/darkness
in the context we are talking? Well...duh. He started the EARTH
MOVING IN ROTATION. Before this, the earth wasn't rotating. Why
would it be? God had just formed it. He formed it and set it into
place in the heavens as he did all other things! He is the creator!
There is no big bang! No stupid explanations of 1 in a googol odds
collisions that happen to result in 8 near circular orbiting bodies
(pluto's orbit isn't near circular...I get more stupid people
thinking I'm so ignorant that I don't know there are more than 8
recognized planets :-) ) no. A God who precisely DESIGNED this as
an artist designs his work! Praise be to the God who has created all
things forever and ever! Now,
5- And God called the light day, and and the darkenss he called
night. And there was evening and morning; one day.
OK! So you see, God did MUCH stuff BEFORE THE EARTH WAS EVEN
ROTATING. While we refer to this all as 'the first day of
creation'...technically...God was moonlighting...errr...there was no
moonlight either...ok he was starlighting possibly LONG before the
morning of the first day. GOT IT? I don't see why people don't get
this kind of stuff. It's so elementary and crud it's in the first
FIVE VERSES OF GENESIS! People need to quit messing around and dig
into the bible and understand it ALL with this kind of simplicity.
Stop adding to it. Where did you get the crazy idea that the creation
of the universe occurred AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST EARTH DAY!
THE TEXT BLATANTLY TELLS YOU YOU ARE WRONG> Let's move on shall we?
-Bob
_No_. You claim to know what it says in Genesis, yet you deny what it says
in the next few verses a little farther down the page:
I guarantee that I do not. There is A VIABLE grammatical representation.
I've read the WHOLE bible. I don't deny ANY of it...and besides...you didn't
deal with what I just proposed up there. You operate just like the
unbelieving mockers who never deal with the body slam I deal to their
pseudo- reasoning. You just ignore it...and go on to another objection.
I'll at least answer your basic thrust here. But I can't labor through even
reading past this first stuff right now for lack of time.
[...] And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to
divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons,
and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give
light
upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and
the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [...]
So what we have here, _three days after_ the creation of light, is the
Nope. You are being presumptuous again. READ ALL the possible grammatical
interpretations into the mix first. Just because you can only think of one,
that doesn't mean there only *is* one. You aren't God. You are fallable.
Listen to others and consider their evaluations. Do they CONFLICT with the
grammar?? If not, consider them as viable interpretations. Then examine
how they fit with the other things spoken in scripture. If there is no fit,
then either you have made an error or..the bible is faulty. SO far I've not
seen anything where the bible is faulty. :-) And that as I said is why it's
obvious the hand of God was in it.
Anyway the grammar is pretty clear at v.1 It makes it sound like God
created the heavens and the earth TOGETHER. THen it starts talking about
the development of the earth. This 'firmament' that keeps getting
mentioned is the expanse that we view above the earth obviously from
context. This text was primarily to give people on earth after all an idea
of how things came together around them.
So, VIABLE WAYS to interpret v14 and on?
1) There could have been post creation haze. Took that long for stars to
begin to be visible which were already there.
2) The nearest star is 3 light years away...riiighhhht? :-) Man...I have to
tell you people EVERYTHING! Quit righting so much and just sit down and
think for a while. I mean...if the light GOT THERE on the THIRD DAY....and
it's 3 years away.....how many days before the 3rd day did the star get
created?? :-)
Now God could have painted with photons. My theory is that some of the
things 3 billion ly out there...might not even be out there :-). God might
have just 'painted' a stream of photons. He's able, right? Heheh. Who
knows? So this is really a stupid argument. The fact is, he could have
done it any way he wanted to. But...from the text, it sounds more likely
that he actually might have done some stuff in the ETERNITY HE'S BEEN IN
EXISTANCE...besides set around or whatever. RIGHT?
Anyway, I normally charge money for stuff like this. If you want to
reimburse me for the time I've spent just let me know. But otherwise, I'm
done. There are many ways things could have happened. Like I said, God
might have had some reason for having the earth spin real slow for a while.
He's the cook...I'm not! Get a clue. Who said a 24 hour day as we now keep
time? NOBODY. So shut up and go meditate on why this stuff just is a waste
of time and start doing something useful like loving the lost world that
needs Jesus! Man. This a body..sheesa sick one.
creation of the celestial bodies, the sun and the moon and the stars.
He well may have CONTINUED creating celestial bodies here....so?
Meaningless rambling. -Bob
On day
one God created light, and made a separation between light and darkness
and
day and night. Three days later He creates the solar system, the stars and
the sun and the moon etc. So they were obviously _not_ created on day one,
together with the light. Therefore the universe was _empty_ on day one,
removing all reason for the earth to be rotating to separate day from
night.
Because rotating wouldn't do any good, with respect to the day/night
separation. Because the sun, the moon and the stars had not yet been
created.
Now, the big question is obviously: what was that light, and how come
there
was already a 'day' and 'night' distinction on day one? That's not an easy
question, but I will try to give a believable answer.
First, apparently it was important to God to have all things created in
time
spans of days, in a period of one week. A possible reason for this might
be
the natural order He was going to create, especially with regard to the
earth's place in the solar system. That would yield the time division of
days and weeks and months we are familiar with now. This natural order
would
require a good separation of that time in smaller periods in which
creatures
would work and in which creatures would rest, resulting in the day/night
distinction. So with that in mind, God set out to start His creation
process, divided over periods of earth days. (Apparently working six days
and resting the seventh is a healthy system.)
The first thing that has to be created, in order for things to really
work,
is light. So that was made, and immediately ordered to be separated from
the
dark, so that the those two would each have their own function and time,
as
would be important for the rest of the creation. Where did that light come
from then, if there wasn't a sun to emit it? The only thing I can think of
is that it was just there, as a created concept if you will, temporarily
in
place until the actual source would take over, the physical light sources,
i.e. the sun, the moon and the stars. Also, there is that significant text
in Revelation, which tells us that the physical things are not necessarily
the only source of light.
Revelation 21:23
... And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in
it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light
thereof.
...
So here we see a possible explanation for the light on the first day:
God's
very presence could have lit the earth, after He had created the concept.
Also note the fact that everything begins with light and according to
Revelation will also 'end' with light. This could be seen as an indication
that God, who is Light, is the beginning and the end of all things, as is
said in so many places throughout the Bible. Without God, there is no
light,
and without God, there is no Life. This beginning of everything with light
is an indication that our beginning lies in God.
Okay, do I need to go on? I think it's quite clear now that your
interpretation doesn't comply with the rest of Genesis.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ariaan" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending this thread.... |
12 Feb 2004 02:41:04 PM |
|
|
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:bGxWb.532494$_x2.1135171@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
<thisisagenuineaddresssopleaseomittheobvioustoreplyNOOOSPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:T1cWb.518526$_x2.1109192@zonnet-reader-1...
Bob Weigel wrote:
"Ariaan"
God specifically named it 'day', in relation with 'evening' and
'morning'.
You say this like...you think I didn't know this or something.
Obviously I know this. Right? READ CAREFULLY GENESIS 1 -5 with me
and let me detail what I'm observing in EACH verse with regard to
chronological time..ok?
1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Ok...he did something here. Something fairly significant. He
created the entire universe including the earth. I dare say...it
might have taken some time. I don't know how much...but..one thing
is for sure....
2- And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the
surface of the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the
surface of the waters.
Nothing regarding time here...
3- Then god said 'let there be light, and there was light'.
OOOkay. NOW mornings and evenings are possible. The sun was created
apparently at this point. AND TO PROVE my POINT..... verses 4 AND
5...
4- And God saw that the light was good; and god separated the light
from the darkness
Obviously with respect to the surface of the waters which he
previously spoke of with regard to his spirit's movement. Hence THIS
was also an ACTION of God. HOW did he 'separate' the light/darkness
in the context we are talking? Well...duh. He started the EARTH
MOVING IN ROTATION. Before this, the earth wasn't rotating. Why
would it be? God had just formed it. He formed it and set it into
place in the heavens as he did all other things! He is the creator!
There is no big bang! No stupid explanations of 1 in a googol odds
collisions that happen to result in 8 near circular orbiting bodies
(pluto's orbit isn't near circular...I get more stupid people
thinking I'm so ignorant that I don't know there are more than 8
recognized planets :-) ) no. A God who precisely DESIGNED this as
an artist designs his work! Praise be to the God who has created
all things forever and ever! Now,
5- And God called the light day, and and the darkenss he called
night. And there was evening and morning; one day.
OK! So you see, God did MUCH stuff BEFORE THE EARTH WAS EVEN
ROTATING. While we refer to this all as 'the first day of
creation'...technically...God was moonlighting...errr...there was no
moonlight either...ok he was starlighting possibly LONG before the
morning of the first day. GOT IT? I don't see why people don't get
this kind of stuff. It's so elementary and crud it's in the first
FIVE VERSES OF GENESIS! People need to quit messing around and dig
into the bible and understand it ALL with this kind of simplicity.
Stop adding to it. Where did you get the crazy idea that the
creation of the universe occurred AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST
EARTH DAY! THE TEXT BLATANTLY TELLS YOU YOU ARE WRONG> Let's move
on shall we? -Bob
_No_. You claim to know what it says in Genesis, yet you deny what
it says in the next few verses a little farther down the page:
I guarantee that I do not. There is A VIABLE grammatical
representation. I've read the WHOLE bible. I don't deny ANY of
it...and besides...you didn't deal with what I just proposed up
there. You operate just like the unbelieving mockers who never deal
with the body slam I deal to their pseudo- reasoning. You just
ignore it...and go on to another objection. I'll at least answer your
basic thrust here. But I can't labor through even reading past this
first stuff right now for lack of time.
[...] And the evening and the morning were the third day.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven
to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for
seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. [...]
So what we have here, _three days after_ the creation of light, is
the
Nope. You are being presumptuous again. READ ALL the possible
grammatical interpretations into the mix first. Just because you can
only think of one, that doesn't mean there only *is* one. You aren't
God. You are fallable. Listen to others and consider their
evaluations. Do they CONFLICT with the grammar?? If not, consider
them as viable interpretations. Then examine how they fit with the
other things spoken in scripture. If there is no fit, then either
you have made an error or..the bible is faulty. SO far I've not seen
anything where the bible is faulty. :-) And that as I said is why
it's obvious the hand of God was in it. Anyway the grammar is
pretty clear at v.1 It makes it sound like God created the heavens
and the earth TOGETHER. THen it starts talking about the development
of the earth. This 'firmament' that keeps getting mentioned is the
expanse that we view above the earth obviously from context. This
text was primarily to give people on earth after all an idea of how
things came together around them. So, VIABLE WAYS to interpret
v14 and on?
1) There could have been post creation haze. Took that long for
stars to begin to be visible which were already there.
2) The nearest star is 3 light years away...riiighhhht? :-) Man...I
have to tell you people EVERYTHING! Quit righting so much and just
sit down and think for a while. I mean...if the light GOT THERE on
the THIRD DAY....and it's 3 years away.....how many days before the
3rd day did the star get created?? :-)
Now God could have painted with photons. My theory is that some
of the things 3 billion ly out there...might not even be out there
:-). God might have just 'painted' a stream of photons. He's able,
right? Heheh. Who knows? So this is really a stupid argument. The
fact is, he could have done it any way he wanted to. But...from the
text, it sounds more likely that he actually might have done some
stuff in the ETERNITY HE'S BEEN IN EXISTANCE...besides set around or
whatever. RIGHT? Anyway, I normally charge money for stuff like
this. If you want to reimburse me for the time I've spent just let
me know. But otherwise, I'm done. There are many ways things could
have happened. Like I said, God might have had some reason for
having the earth spin real slow for a while. He's the cook...I'm not!
Get a clue. Who said a 24 hour day as we now keep time? NOBODY. So
shut up and go meditate on why this stuff just is a waste of time and
start doing something useful like loving the lost world that needs
Jesus! Man. This a body..sheesa sick one.
Well, if you want to show love for others, I would advise you to change your
attitude towards them.
creation of the celestial bodies, the sun and the moon and the stars.
He well may have CONTINUED creating celestial bodies here....so?
Meaningless rambling. -Bob
Thank you ever so much for that.
Well, it's a shame you don't read the whole piece before answering.
It's also a shame you're so keen on using those big words.
First read all of it and then respond. And check your grammar, because your
interpretation doesn't add up when you read Genesis. And another thing, I
think I've addressed your points quite well. I've shown why the sun was not
created on day one, as you claim it has, and I've shown that the earth was
not rotating at that time because the universe was still empty. Okay? So
what other points did you have...?
So read what I wrote (because it sorta counters your stuff) and then I have
only this to add:
The King James Version and most Bible translations say this:
1- In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth
2- And the earth was formless and void and darkness was over the surface of
the deep; and the spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
3- Then god said 'let there be light, and there was light'.
Literally it says this:
1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth-
2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the
deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,
3 and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is.
4 And God seeth the light that it is good, and God separateth between the
light and the darkness,
5 and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called
'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning-day one.
What is the difference? The difference is that the KJV and the others
obscure the fact that this first verse is an _overview_, a summary of the
creation. _Then_ Genesis moves on to the actual first phase of the creation.
Which is shown in the literal translation, where it says that "at the start
of the creation, the condition of the earth was that it was void and waste,
and then God created 'light'. So it actually says: In the beginning, God
created light. The rest is just an aside. Which shows when you study the
grammar of the text.
Ariaan
On day one
God created light, and made a separation between light and
darkness and day and night. Three days later He creates the solar
system, the stars and the sun and the moon etc. So they were
obviously _not_ created on day one, together with the light.
Therefore the universe was _empty_ on day one, removing all reason
for the earth to be rotating to separate day from night. Because
rotating wouldn't do any good, with respect to the day/night
separation. Because the sun, the moon and the stars had not yet been
created.
Now, the big question is obviously: what was that light, and how
come there was already a 'day' and 'night' distinction on day one?
That's not an easy question, but I will try to give a believable
answer.
First, apparently it was important to God to have all things created
in time spans of days, in a period of one week. A possible reason
for this might be the natural order He was going to create,
especially with regard to the earth's place in the solar system.
That would yield the time division of days and weeks and months we
are familiar with now. This natural order would require a good
separation of that time in smaller periods in which creatures would
work and in which creatures would rest, resulting in the day/night
distinction. So with that in mind, God set out to start His creation
process, divided over periods of earth days. (Apparently working six
days and resting the seventh is a healthy system.)
The first thing that has to be created, in order for things to
really work, is light. So that was made, and immediately ordered to
be separated from the dark, so that the those two would each have
their own function and time, as would be important for the rest of
the creation. Where did that light come from then, if there wasn't a
sun to emit it? The only thing I can think of is that it was just
there, as a created concept if you will, | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
