Slashdot Mirror

Chuck Missler is simply one of the best teachers of the Bible I've come across in 35+ years of faith in Jesus. He comes from an extensive technical background, focused on information technologies. I highly recommend anyone with honest questions to look into his work.
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?... https://www.khouse.org/ http://www.youtube.com/user/ko...

  Above all else, read for yourself. It takes a decent overall perspective to make sense of much of the specifics, but it's really not that hard of a read. Certainly the most remarkable book I've ever encountered...

Special Relativity may be correct since the Bible doesn't say anything about the speed of light.

This cretin seems to think otherwise - from the 'article':

Since creation week, the diameter of the universe has been constant (a static universe) and the speed of light has dropped precipitously to its present value-following decay curves we can now piece together with some confidence based on (a) measured values of c for the last 300 years, (b) corrections to known radioactive decay dates which go back to approximately 2000 B.C., and (c) the observed quantization of the red shift of light from distant galaxies for the time period from creation to about the time of Abraham.

I'd love to see more of this Bible Relativity explained - it's surely a rich vein of humour.

The Hebrew alphabet is alphanumeric: each Hebrew letter also has a numerical value and can be used as a number.

The common word for circumference is qav. Here, however, the spelling of the word for circumference, qaveh, adds a heh (h).
...
This indicates an adjustment of the ratio 111/ 106, or 31.41509433962 cubits. Assuming that a cubit was 1.5 ft. this 15-foot-wide bowl would have had a circumference of 47.12388980385 feet.
This Hebrew "code" results in 47.12264150943 feet, or an error of less than 15 thousandths of an inch!

Right, because "let there be light" is so different than what happened when recombination occurred (and let light flow through the cosmos) or that the Big Bang occurred (proof of a beginning) which is so different from Creation itself. You don't seem to realize that everything physicists have been finding so far is supporting what the Bible says. Just because scientists don't say anything regarding God in how they view the universe started doesn't change the fact that everything they believe to have happened is exactly how Genesis describes the universe. I'm sure some of them hate the fact that their theories are supporting the Bible. In fact, Fred Hoyle didn't like the Big Bang theory because it implied a point of creation. God still exists whether you believe in Him or not; scientific theories about the universe support the Bible whether scientists like it or not. Also, Setterfield used more than just a handful of measurements to create his theory on the slowing down of light. His website shows what he did. Finally, Joao Magueijo wrote a book a few years ago about his theory about the non-constancy of the speed of light.

I agree that your moral system, just like any human moral system, is only a matter of opinion and nothing more. Logically, then, murder is only wrong to those who think it's wrong.

All I was saying is that if you want to argue any type of absolute (not opinion-based) moral system you have to argue the existence of a higher being who enforces it.

If you're looking to prove God empirically by repeatable experiment, you're looking in the wrong medium or dimension. Obviously any God who created the universe would necessarily be outside it. But to assume that because you can't see Him in puny experiments in the material realm, God doesn't exist, would be as foolish as for a fish to assume that birds don't exist.

Now if you'd like to find some of the evidence you assume is so annoyingly nonexistent, you only need to study the life and claims of Jesus Christ as documented historically in over 10,000 manuscripts of the New Testament plus hundreds of writings contemporary to Christ's life, death and resurrection worldwide. You'll come to one of three conclusions about Him: Either He was a complete nutcase worthy of being put away in an asylum, or He was a compulsive liar, or He is God. It's not possible to look at history and say Jesus was only a "good teacher" because no good teacher lies or claims he is something he isn't.

Along the same path, you can check out the "divine fingerprints" article which I linked in my other reply also.

Your argument doesn't establish a basis for morals. What I was saying is without a God for humans to look to for direction on how to live, there can be no absolute moral standard, because who is going to decide for whom how all men should live? It all becomes relative and changes "with the times". Just look at the world today and you'll see many differing moral standards, usually driven by different religious influence. Muslim, Buddhist and Judeo-Christian have wildly different and contradicting moral standards.

Things persist OK when all parties treat each other as they would be treated (a key biblical principle). However things quickly break down when one person wants to take something from someone else - they have an uncanny ability to justify it in their own mind, but then a war has started, and who is to say that the offender was really in the wrong if he had a good reason in his mind?

Take abortion for example. It correctly falls under the definition of murder, if the unborn child is considered a human being. But people decided it was convenient to kill unwanted babies, so they justified it by calling them fetuses and claiming that a fetus is not a human, even when the only difference is the location of its body (inside or outside the womb.) Who's to fault them if there is no living, all-powerful God who holds men accountable for their actions? Who really cares if another human faults you - if you get away with it, what's the difference, and who's to call it immoral if their definition of moral is only relative?

The fact that we have some semblance of order and some (albeit foggy) sense of right and wrong (which Madonna and Britney are "bored with the concept of") actually gives weight to the argument for the existence of a God who founded moral principles in the minds of men and/or through divine revelation.

Even the legal system in the US and many other countries was built largely upon the Judeo-Christian ethic - also the American Constitution and most of the founding documents. This ethic came from the Bible, which is the most historically and archeologically verifiable book in the world, as well as the most fascinating to cryptologists for its impossibly complex patterns - divine fingerprints.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." Proverbs 1:7

Jim,

You say you had no idea that books written before the birth of Jesus were written about Jesus. If this is same kind of Jewish argument that Jesus Christ is not the Messiah Nagid we will just need to agree to disagree. If you truly are not aware of who Jesus Christ is and the fact that the entire Bible is written about the Messiah Nagid who was born to the virgin Marry and given the name Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah I have good new for you. Yeshua in Hebrew means both "Salvation," and the concatenated form of Yahoshua, the "Lord who is Salvation."

You may say this information is not for you because you have heard rumors that the Bible is not true and is full of circular reasoning, well I am here to tell you that these are just rumors and speculation by people, who like you, have never tested the facts. If you are asking me to be your personal trainer and challenging me to prove it to you then you have miss judged who I am. You say "You're still trying to use your belief that the Bible is true to prove that the Bible is true", again you miss judge what I have said, I was only responding to the comment that the Bible is not falsifiable.

Just like people on this page challenge me to go learn the facts about evolution I challenge you to go learn the facts about the Bible. If you are so inclined, you might find this web site helpful: http://www.khouse.org/, it is one of the few places I know where the details of Bible prophecy are taught, discuss and tested. When someone challenges me to learn about evolution I do not take it as please spoon feed me your proof, a link in the right direction and maybe answering a few questions is sufficient.

Proving the Bible is no easy task because you need to learn how to read the Bible first, you need to learn Jewish customs and terminology, you need to use Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic dictionaries and you need to study archeology. If you just read a section of the Bible the way many preachers do today you will miss most of what the Bible says.

You might say the man that literally split time in two (BC/AD) never lived and the information written about Him is not true, I guarantee that your efforts to prove the Bible wrong will not only authenticate it, it will change your life forever.

God bless you and keep you.

I just read a paper by someone who obviously does not have a favorable opinion toward scientists that believe in creation: http://www.philosoraptor.com/little_essay02.html

I must admit I agree with his assessment that pro creation biologists and pro abiogenesis biologists agree a lot more than they disagree; it is the abiogenesis (new word for me) that they disagree on most.

Abiogenesis: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Abi ogenesis&btnG=Google+Search

As far as the Bible being falsifiable there is plenty of opportunity for falsification; for example, most of the Bible is prophecy which means at any point if the prophecy does not come true the Bibles is proved false.

Let me give you a couple of examples of accurate prophecy:

Psalms 22: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Psa/Psa022.html #top
Isaiah: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Isa/Isa053.html #top
Genesis 49:10: http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Gen/Gen049.html #10

There are over 300 accurate prophecies about Jesus Christ; all of them 100 percent came true.

In the times of Jesus the Bible teachers of the day were going nuts because the scepter was finally removed from Israel, the authority to sentence someone to death and carry out the death penalty had come 1500 years after the prophecy in Genesis 49:10.

The prophecy that tells of Jesus being crucified instead of stoned to death didn't even make sense when it was foretold because stoning was the prescribed method to carry out a death sentence during the time period 1000 BC.

The entire book of Daniel was considered to be written around 150 AD until they found the Septuagint dating back 300 years before Christ proving the prophetic accuracy of the book written by Daniel 700 years before Christ, disprove a single prophecy and you will make the Bible null and void.

It turns out the Bible has more prophecy that speaks of the times we are in today and our future than any other time in the history of the world, so from that stand point there is going to be plenty of opportunity for falsification.

This is a great site if you are interested in Biblical prophecy: http://www.khouse.org/

I will leave you with the fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ, His commandment for His followers:

12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another, just as I have loved you.
John 15:12

God bless you and keep you.

What is the real debate? Is it really "if you believe in God your and idiot" or is there a deeper debate under the surface? What are the "holes in evolution", what are the alternatives being discuss by today's scientists? As much fun as it is to go back and forth saying is/is not, I personally enjoy jumping into the fray and wallowing in the facts and theories.

The one thing I would ask is that you to do is keep and open mind, don't be like the current secular scientific community that rejects information before reviewing it just because someone has a different personal belief system than you do. If you do this you have literally taken yourself out of the game because you are not reviewing all possible outcomes of the information before you make a decision.

Let me give you and example:

Quote (from this article: http://www.khouse.org/articles/2002/423/ ) :
"Barry wrote another paper and submitted it to a standard physics journal in 1999. They did not send it to peer review but returned it immediately, saying it was not a timely subject, was of no current interest, and was not substantial enough. (It was over fifty pages long with about a hundred and fifty references to standard physics papers and texts.) So Barry resubmitted it to an astronomy journal. They sent it out to peer review and the report came back that the paper was really interesting but that it really belonged in a physics journal."

This is very common, once a technical journal learns you are pro-creation they reject papers without technical peer review, what are they afraid of? What is happening is more open minded scientist are exploring new areas and finding there is more than one way to explain the data, while the scientist that only accept material that is consistent with their own personal belief system are putting themselves in a box.

It is interesting that science is not standing still even though the time honored main stream scientific journals and universities are while the more open minded scientist are creating their own venue for the free exchange of new ideas. They are free to explore the possibility that evolution might never have happened and we might very well be living on a young earth.

Because the scientific community is truly split on the issues of the age of the earth and evolution verses creation the real issue is one of personal choice. Many atheists have stated it very clearly, if they can prove evolution then they can disprove ID and there is no reason for morality because there is no God or creator. Atheists have clearly stated that they are free to perform what Christians believe are immoral acts; for example, man has no law against lying, sexual promiscuity or homosexuality, to an atheist this is a type of freedom.

Atheists have clearly stated that they enjoy the freedoms they are given, not being accountable to a creator or the all mighty God. What is the impact of this freedom on scientific discovery? Let me give you some examples, an atheist scientist can lie to prove their point, look at the history of the theory of evolution because it is fraught with deception and lies. We still see the chart hung up on walls and in text books of the evolution of the chimpanzee evolving into a man, when every fossil that was used to create that chart was found to be either a fraud or human, one of them was even crated from a pig tooth!!!

If this is the foundation of the science of evolution then how do we know that today's atheist scientists are not following in the same foot steps as their fathers? You could argue that the scientists, that also happen to be Christens, claiming that there are not only holes in the theory of evolution, the evidence is becoming overwhelming from imperial data and probabilistic models against evolution are not sincere? The fact is there is disagreement between the two communities of equally educated scientists and some are being less than honest.

If you where in a situation where your life depended on a single stranger telling the truth and that stranger was offered one billion dollars to lie would you chose an atheist or a Christine?

"whereas Creationists will also acknowledge the supernatural as real (which reality I believe also can be proven by thermodynamics, in a sense)."

So, what is supernatural then? Can you give an example of something supernatural that you think might one day be proven by science?

Was hoping you'd ask. :) Actually, what I was referring to here was the First Law of Thermodynamics. It says that no matter (or energy) can be created or destroyed in any natural process, but can only be converted into another form. How do we apply this to origins? The way I see it, according to this law, everything can't be created from nothing naturally, therefore I conclude that it was something unnatural, or supernatural, if you will, which created everything. Nothing else seems to line up with this law.

As for something supernatural that can be proven by science, it is actually recorded in history that a 12th century Hebrew sage by the name of Nachmonides, after an intense study of Genesis chapter 1, concluded that we all live in ten dimensions - the same conclusion our particle physicists are making today.
http://www.khouse.org/articles/technical/19980701- 62.html
Nachmonides categorized the first four dimensions as "knowable," meaning that we could experience/detect them, and he listed the last six as "not knowable" - meaning they were beyond the realm of our experience. Some have suggested that these six other dimensions are what we commonly refer to as the 'supernatural.' Now, whether or not that is true cannot be conclusively said, but I do believe that it is an interesting proposition.

Ruling out the the supernatural has been the way mankind has gone forward in the last thousand years. "Why is there lightning? Oh it's supernatural - God is angry." Imagine leaving it there.

I see evolutionists coming up with a better understand on humans and animals, leading to medicines and so on. What advancements have the supernaturalists made? It's not useful to consider the supernatural side - nothing has come of it for the last several thousand years.

Well, that's an unfair statement. Was it the idea of evolution that allowed the Chinese to invent gunpowder? Was it evolution that led to the invention of the watch? Did evolution contribute to the design and operation of the steam engine? Howabout the first airplane? The transistor? The microchip? The computer? The spaceship? The satelite? Evolutionary understanding has undergirded none of these inventions. Just because a collection of the people who made same of these items believed in evolution does not therefore mean that the same discovery could not have been made by a Christian. Ingenuity does not limit itself to philosophical understanding. This is a cause and effect fallacy. It would be like saying because the sun happens to rise while the rooster crows, that the rooster causes the sun to rise. This is simply not the case.

Books like the bible can be shown to show and predict anything - after the fact. But are useless are saying anything in advance. Look at Nostradamus's work.

The Bible is different from Nostradamus and any other prophet in that the prophecies in the Bible are not vague digressive monstrosities laden with loopholes galore - they are specific, and every one has been fulfilled to the T. For example, Ezekiel predicted that many nations would come up against Tyre (Eze. 26:3), that Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar would be the first to attack it (Eze. 26:7), the walls and towers of Tyre would be broken down (Eze. 26:4,9), that the stones, timbers, and debris of that great city would be thrown into the sea (Eze. 26:12), that its location would become a bare rock and a place for the drying of fishermens' nets (Eze. 26:4-5, 14), and finally, that the city of Tyre would never be rebuilt (Eze. 26:14). Doesn't soun

For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. [Philippians 1:21-24]

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. [1 John 5:9-13, emphasis added]

I understand the arguments of both sides. I don't believe there is any global warming.

Global Warming or Hot Air?

The Leipzig Declaratioin

Desperate Times Call for Desperate Acts

Global Warming? Nevermind!

Cooling Off on Global Warming

Why the Kyoto Greenhouse Gases Accord is Full of Hot Air

Global Warming Hype Heats Up

Global Warming and the Media Elite

The Heat is Online

Numerous Articles on Global Warming


Read those articles, and do your own research. Don't trust me... look into it yourself, and you'll see the truth.

For an interesting discussion of this "discrepancy" check out this link:
http://www.khouse.org/articles/biblestudy/19980401 -158.html

(Ya, okay, it's a stretch... but interesting nonetheless.)

All your sources are hearsay. Some direct evidence comes from papyrus Magdalen Greek 17/P64 which was proven (using a scanning laser microscope) to be contemporaneous with the living apostles. Since that is in Greek, and exactly matches the Textus Receptus, it's clear that even if an original was in another language, that the accurate Greek text was in use during the time the apostles were alive. Therefore the Greek text we have in the TR is accurate (and there are a LOT of other proofs of that). And the Greek text clearly shows that Peter and the rock of faith the church is founded on are not the same, as detailed in the prior post in the Greek grammatical analysis.

Also, Matthew was a publican (customs/tax official). As such, he would have been quite capable in shorthand transcription of verbal discourses. And those would have been in Koine Greek, the language of commerce in the Roman Empire then. His shorthand would not have been Hebrew, as that would not have been useful as a Roman official in any way. And when he was recording the words of our Lord, using his shorthand training would certainly explain why he got the entire "long version" of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) recorded verbatim. And have you ever examined greek vs. hebrew letters? It's a lot easier to write greek letters with speed and accuracy than it is hebrew, which is far more subtle in its letter formations. Shorthand in greek letters would be a lot easier (though I really prefer this keyboard for speed and comfort (and it's cheap!).

This article reminded me of a stack of papers passed around my dorm about 10 years ago about the slowing of the speed of light by an Australian astronomer named Barry Setterfield.

Someone of a Creationism bent took his original paper and proceeded to extrapolate into the past and determined that at some point the speed of light was so fast, Carbon-14 decayed so fast, it would seem like millions or even billions of years given the current speed of light. And therefore, ipso facto, Evolution is wrong and Creationism is right. I still have it somewhere with my college memorabillia, probably with all the Young Republicans for Freedom propaganda I snagged off their table in the student union.

Here's more about the implication of changing constants (Their words, not mine) and a short version here.