OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.
For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.
Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.
Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.
I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15
As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.
Saying in effect, "Are you really there God, let me prove it by some scientific method." will never prove God. Yahweh popping into sight of all people of the Earth and saying "Here I AM worship me" and shooting off some fireworks will not be motivation for obedience. Take Exodus for example if you are a believer or any criminal today if you are not. Just b/c people see God or Laws and Enforcement will not make them obey/submit if they don't want to. Christianity or Citizenship only works if practitioner is willing, and educated.
I tell myself every day that/. is not the place for bible discussion. But it keeps coming back. Last time I got modded troll bait. I will keep it uncontroversial. Or Try to.
[bible citation needed]
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?
See below.
despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.
I don't know where that came from either.
With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.
OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4.
The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.
The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.
Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)
Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.
Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.
I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.
Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.
And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)
It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.
But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.
Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.
I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15
Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33
My non-scientific conclusion was human babies need more love.
I wonder if badness of chimps has to do with lack of proper parental guidance. They learn similar to humans, are they taught 'morals' in the wild? (Or at least, if I get all bad, someone more bad will bust face)
OK, I give. I agree with you 98%. Especially with the ideal of SM will get it right eventually.
My only point is that a statement like "SM/will/ (100.000% chance) never fail" sounds like a type of prediction that religion calls prophecy. But you didn't say that.
I think we have beaten this thing to death, but I have enjoyed discussion. It has refined my thoughts on some things. Thank you for keeping it civil.
What we really need are some extremely awesome mirrors about 2.3 billion light-years away, pointed our way, and some equally awesome telescopes to point at them.../pipe dream
I agree it works *nicely* I'm not arguing for change.
My main point is that it doesn't work perfectly.
Here's wikipedia def for Infallible:
When a statement, teaching, or book is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following:
1. It is something that cannot be proved false
2. It is something that can be safely relied on
3. It is something completely trustworthy and sure
Like I said earlier, are you convinced that the Scientific Method is completely trustworthy and sure? If so, then all output (that faithfully follows The method) would fit 1 and 2.
I love science and tech. I do not base all decisions in life on them. I doubt you do either. It just seemed funny that one can say, "my way is infallible, and you're stupid to claim such about your way."
About Christianity, and exposing hypocrisy, I try to expose truth every day I am alive. But I never shove it down other's throats. Or disrespect them to their face. You don't want to hear it, I shut up.
That line of argument is/not/ analogous to the scientific method, though - christianity doesn't have any particular goal, and thus you can't judge its success or failure.
I could argue that, but this forum is/. and not theology.org, so I will not.
Nor do I see how that would have any bearing on my initial argument.
Ok, You originally said, "It hasn't failed yet." Thus time was brought into the equation. To explore the "clock stopping" statement more, We live in the present and therefore if today we searched all peer-reviewed science we could find opposing theories and bad science. Or explanations that do not best fit the facts.
Applying this to real life, big pharma engages in scientific method. FDA checks and others retest according to scientific method. (as best I understand it)
So my point originally is that the Scientific Method will not always produce correct outcome. This is b/c humans are involved and limits of equipment/methodology. But not all bad drugs that have been pulled from the shelves are because of big Pharma cover-up. Sometimes time and wider use was needed to uncover the dangers.
To put it simply, would you say that every scientific study following the Scientific Method will produce true/correct facts? I was saying with sarcasm, NO, even faithful use of Scientific Method will sometimes produce bad science.
Or put another way, Are you convinced of/all/ published, peer-reviewed science?
I am not. I am convinced of/most/ of it. That is my point. I don't think my view is dogmatic.
Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.
Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.
Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8
There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36
Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.
Thank you for the response. I agree that the ideal of the scientific method, if/when followed, will eventually find out the facts. I personally love science, especially math, genetics, and astronomy.
I only ask that you allow me to also say:
Christianity as it is practised in reality is, of course, fallible and flawed. But Christianity is (in a sense) the Christian ideal that Jesus set as a life pattern. The Christian method/works/, despite all the failings of the people claiming to 'practise' it.
In other words, If all or most "Christians" acted like Christ, I think people would enjoy them. He never *forced* his ideas on others and the only ones he upbraided were religious hypocrites. He set up some pretty good principles too. "More Happiness in Giving than Receiving" "Do unto others..." And they work. I don't want to sound preachy, but I'm sure you've heard of this: Why Money Doesnt Buy Happiness and Key to Happiness, Give Away Money.
As to why Christendom doesn't act Christian, well that is not for/....
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
#3 coupled with #6 is entirely subject to what doctors call the placebo effect. Should it happen? No. Will it happen? Yes. Will it all work out in the end? Probably. My point is that when you introduce humans with egos into prediction, you never can completely weed out *subjective* POV. And when you introduce #8, making it a process, usually what you get is a bunch of scientists fighting.
Or how about this, Religious people claim God is infallible, you claim they are false and point to people claiming to be believers in God while generally being hypocrites. I postulate you can find the same in followers of "infallible" scientific method. If you are allowed to divorce Hwang Woo-suk from science, Can I not divorce all "Christian" Hypocrites from Christianity?
I do not defend any "Christian" dabbling in politics. (John 18:36) I do not try to coerce anyone. I will engage in respectful conversation of opposing POVs. If I offend, I will stop. Let me know.
I invite you to read the gospels and see how much you already put into practice, and how much the rest might benefit yourself.
Does a Scientist who lies and steals material speak for the whole of science?
Neither does a hypocrite who claims to be Christian speak for Christ. Matthew 7:21-23
As for laws and such, If neither God nor his son are forcing people to act a certain way, why should his followers? John 18:36.
Revelation 18 compares religion involved in politics to something. Check it out if you care too. That's one prophecy I'm personally looking forward to very much.
As I was pointing out to another poster, in Hebrew, soul,(nephesh) means 'that which breathes' the greeks and romans taught undying, ethereal souls. The Hebrews didn't (Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible also calls animals souls. At Genesis 9:4 in the original language Blood is equated with soul. Just so you know. Use info as you will. I follow Jesus' example when it comes to politics. (John 18:36)
Just so you know, the Hebrew word for soul means literally "that which breathes." The OT calls any breathing animal a soul, not having a soul, but being (to be) a soul. That includes humans. It also calls an unborn fetus a soul in Exodus 21:22-24
But don't think that I'm trying to force my opinion on you, I just want you to know what the real Bible definition of soul is. Use that info as you wish.
If you mean the *minor* bad theories or hypotheses have been eventually weeded out...All well and good, but then you have to admit that Scientific Method still hasn't succeeded in being infallible, b/c we're still on the road. By that I mean, if we stopped the clock now, there would almost assuredly be some wrong widely held views.
Succinctly, If it hasn't failed yet, then it hasn't succeeded either, yet.
Scientists are as genetically defective as the rest of the human family, studies strongly suggest that scientists can be as hardheaded about their pet projects as the rest of us, and more creative and articulate about defending them
and attacking others.
For example, there are two main theories of the origin of life, basically replication first or Metabolism first. Two scientists were quoted in a science mag (I forget which) and they both called the other's theory "Out of the realm of science."
It depends on the translation. The meanings given by Strongs are:
1) to totter, shake, slip
a) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken
So, basically, not going to be destroyed. Actually argues against Christendom's theology, but not mine.
How would you say sunrise sunset and tomorrow's going to be the same? What phrase do you use in casual use for the rotation of earth causing the Sun to become visible? I would like an answer...
As I see it is: Since God doesn't control those who claim to be his followers to act non-hypocritically and also since God doesn't control human population in general to not be bad to each other, there can't be a God. (Can you see flaw in logic?)
Also, Genesis 1 and 2 generally follow the idea that living things started simple and got more complex. The fact that all life has essentially just GATTACA would argue for one source of all life... Big bang is another. Where does matter come from? Energy. Where does energy come from? Matter. *Must invent New rules*
I am very interested in science. I believe in (or am convinced of) the existence of God, mainly because it explains why so much bad happens. And it predicts What this whole discussion is discussing...
Oh, I invite you to spend about 6 months with the Shona if you think that shamans don't have power...Actually I would advise against it. Things wouldn't come out so pretty for you.
Religion is basically belief (or conviction) in a higher power or truth. i.e. YHWH or evolution.
And I say evolution is higher truth to dawkins b/c he spends more time preaching it than 99% of Religious people preach their religion.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't need new music. Get rid of these!
Ah yes, the "Buddhists will burn" clause.
OK here is where my op could have been a book. Like I said, different denominations teach different things. And different translations translate differently. Read also Matthew 25:46 Click on g2851 and check out definition. Also see Matthew 7:13 Life or destruction, not heaven or hell.
For further reading, see Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 and 10 and Ezekiel 18:4 and 20 and John 11:11-14 and the kicker in Revelation 20:13 and 14 Notice it says that Hell (hades) and death get thrown into lake of fire. and Lake of fire is second death, not second death is living forever in a lake of fire. The idea of a burning hell for immortal souls is a Greek idea. I invite you to look up the basic definition of Soul in Hebrew. And know it applies to animals also.
Please don't forget to point out that faith without works can get you into trouble too, I meet way too many "christians" who wouldn't know the difference between a sheep and a goat.
Damn, but you don't want to be stuck on his left hand side.
I agree 100% about the faith w/o works. Anyone who *practices* things not Christian can't really be called a christian. Matthew 7:15-23 I will never tell you or anyone that they will burn in Hell forever. Because it's just not true. See Revelation 20:13 again. Also see Acts 24:15
As for why mainline Christendom teaches eternal Hellfire and immortal soul, that is another book. Let me know if you want me to publish it here.
Saying in effect, "Are you really there God, let me prove it by some scientific method." will never prove God. Yahweh popping into sight of all people of the Earth and saying "Here I AM worship me" and shooting off some fireworks will not be motivation for obedience. Take Exodus for example if you are a believer or any criminal today if you are not. Just b/c people see God or Laws and Enforcement will not make them obey/submit if they don't want to. Christianity or Citizenship only works if practitioner is willing, and educated.
[bible citation needed]
It says 'day' in the bible. There is no footnote explaining this actual means '1,000' years.
At least not in the King James version.
What GP was referring to is 2 Peter 3:8
Could the reason perhaps be that the Bible says 'day'?
See below.
despite the fact that when Genesis was written no such calender system existed.
I don't know where that came from either.
With all due respect, it is perfectly clear to anyone not trying to reinterpret the theory to fit the data that it does say that the Earth -- and everything in it -- was created in six days.
OK. Here goes. Different bible translations translate different things. True. Different Denominations interpret things differently. You might like to compare KJV of Genesis 2:4 and other translations of Genesis 2:4. The rest of the second chapter actually describes the same history of chapter one and calls it one day. I could say today something like "back in my day" or "back in the Roman's day" and you would understand it to be a period of time in the past. Not literal day.
The previous quote of 2 Peter 3:8 shows that day is not always literal in the Bible. Now, was that verse describing the upper limit of time that day equated with? It doesn't really say. Actually there is approximately 365000^2 range mentioned there.
Here is where religious controversy comes in. Not all religions will agree with above paragraph. Some will say 'God made the fossils and photons and rest of universe to look like 13 billion years old to test your faith' or something like that. Is that the proper interpretation? I don't think so, but that debate is for somewhere else. (please)
Now as for the movement to force "Christianity" on others by rule of law, I personally have not found any New Testament passage that supports that. In fact, the basic tenet of Christianity is that faith is vital and works w/o faith is worthless for salvation.
Even Jesus said his followers had a special relationship with earthly governments. John 18:36. There are others, but realize please according to Gospels, Jesus never forced anything but the thievin' temple merchants.
I agree that science should deal with the observable. If there was 'creation' then all believers should be interested in how it works. I am. It is also very clear that not all "Christianity" can be truth from Bible, some religions flat out contradict each other. Most are close on the major points. I would like to think that where science and religion conflict, as in creationism vs evolution, it is a misinterpretation of Bible and possibly observed data that causes problems. I would agree that more often, religion has stepped wrong, but I wouldn't fault the Bible with that. More likely to blame is man's interpretation.
Any powerful tool can be misused/abused greatly. Look at Crusades and WWII. Religion pretty much at root. But those perps were not acting like Christ.
And finally the difference between modern conventional wisdom and Christianity. Christianity says "Please don't hurt anyone around you including yourself." Modern CW says "Don't hurt anyone around you not including yourself." Which works better? You decide. I'm not here to preach. (I hope you don't feel preached to. If so, Sorry!)
And John 13:34,45 tells you how to find the real ones.
It is not hypocritical to call a spade a spade, as long as you are not one also. Romans 2:21-24 Paul knew that back then too.
But the problem is found in 2 Peter 2:1-3, actually predicted/prophesied all that long time ago.
Any "Christian" who says 'I can't judge anything another does' doesn't have a firm grasp of the Bible, or is not obeying it. See 1st point above.
I was told today that I was going to die and go to hell to burn forever if I didn't become born again. Then the same man told me there were two sides of hell (one good and one bad) That was after I trapped him at "Jesus was in hell for 3 days" Then he said Hell was just a holding place for dead when I read him Revelation 20:13-15
Also, to believe in 'my God decreed time to die' would also mean the rest of the verses there literally are true. Ecclesiastes 3:1-8
And allowing self to die as some unforgivable sin? Check out John 19:30-33
That was a lot of work...
My non-scientific conclusion was human babies need more love.
I wonder if badness of chimps has to do with lack of proper parental guidance. They learn similar to humans, are they taught 'morals' in the wild? (Or at least, if I get all bad, someone more bad will bust face)
My only point is that a statement like "SM /will/ (100.000% chance) never fail" sounds like a type of prediction that religion calls prophecy. But you didn't say that.
I think we have beaten this thing to death, but I have enjoyed discussion. It has refined my thoughts on some things. Thank you for keeping it civil.
What we really need are some extremely awesome mirrors about 2.3 billion light-years away, pointed our way, and some equally awesome telescopes to point at them... /pipe dream
DAS
Here's wikipedia def for Infallible:
When a statement, teaching, or book is called 'infallible', this can mean any of the following: 1. It is something that cannot be proved false 2. It is something that can be safely relied on 3. It is something completely trustworthy and sure
Like I said earlier, are you convinced that the Scientific Method is completely trustworthy and sure? If so, then all output (that faithfully follows The method) would fit 1 and 2.
I love science and tech. I do not base all decisions in life on them. I doubt you do either. It just seemed funny that one can say, "my way is infallible, and you're stupid to claim such about your way."
About Christianity, and exposing hypocrisy, I try to expose truth every day I am alive. But I never shove it down other's throats. Or disrespect them to their face. You don't want to hear it, I shut up.
That line of argument is /not/ analogous to the scientific method, though - christianity doesn't have any particular goal, and thus you can't judge its success or failure.
I could argue that, but this forum is /. and not theology.org, so I will not.
Nor do I see how that would have any bearing on my initial argument.
Ok, You originally said, "It hasn't failed yet." Thus time was brought into the equation. To explore the "clock stopping" statement more, We live in the present and therefore if today we searched all peer-reviewed science we could find opposing theories and bad science. Or explanations that do not best fit the facts.
Applying this to real life, big pharma engages in scientific method. FDA checks and others retest according to scientific method. (as best I understand it)
So my point originally is that the Scientific Method will not always produce correct outcome. This is b/c humans are involved and limits of equipment/methodology. But not all bad drugs that have been pulled from the shelves are because of big Pharma cover-up. Sometimes time and wider use was needed to uncover the dangers.
To put it simply, would you say that every scientific study following the Scientific Method will produce true/correct facts? I was saying with sarcasm, NO, even faithful use of Scientific Method will sometimes produce bad science.
Or put another way, Are you convinced of /all/ published, peer-reviewed science?
I am not. I am convinced of /most/ of it. That is my point. I don't think my view is dogmatic.
Thanks for the link. I've been thinking about that and wondering where it was. The e-coli thing. I am waiting with bated breath for more info.
Please quote me the passage in the Christian bible where it says that Christians can pick and choose which passages of the bible to "interpret"?
The Bible Interprets itself. Take Judges Chapter 9:8 for instance says Once upon a time the trees decided to elect a king.
Then the rest of the Chapter explains it's allegory and what it means.
Read Daniel or Revelation and see all the dreams and wild beasts/monsters. Does Daniel or John really believe in the literal existence of these Beasts? No... Daniel 8:20-22 gives the meaning.
Also all six creative days in Genesis are called 1 day in Genesis 2:4 Also the Bible equates 1 day with 1000 years. 2 Peter 3:8
There are just a few. If you want more, let me know. BTW If you don't like "Christians" in politics, check out John 6:14,15. or John 18:36
Just so you know, I defend no stance taken by blueletterbible.org or any reference they quote, just an easy online bible to quote. I will not defend all Bible translations either.
Just so you know.
I only ask that you allow me to also say:
Christianity as it is practised in reality is, of course, fallible and flawed. But Christianity is (in a sense) the Christian ideal that Jesus set as a life pattern. The Christian method /works/, despite all the failings of the people claiming to 'practise' it.
In other words, If all or most "Christians" acted like Christ, I think people would enjoy them. He never *forced* his ideas on others and the only ones he upbraided were religious hypocrites. He set up some pretty good principles too. "More Happiness in Giving than Receiving" "Do unto others..." And they work. I don't want to sound preachy, but I'm sure you've heard of this: Why Money Doesnt Buy Happiness and Key to Happiness, Give Away Money.
As to why Christendom doesn't act Christian, well that is not for /. ...
1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
#3 coupled with #6 is entirely subject to what doctors call the placebo effect. Should it happen? No. Will it happen? Yes. Will it all work out in the end? Probably. My point is that when you introduce humans with egos into prediction, you never can completely weed out *subjective* POV. And when you introduce #8, making it a process, usually what you get is a bunch of scientists fighting.
Or how about this, Religious people claim God is infallible, you claim they are false and point to people claiming to be believers in God while generally being hypocrites. I postulate you can find the same in followers of "infallible" scientific method. If you are allowed to divorce Hwang Woo-suk from science, Can I not divorce all "Christian" Hypocrites from Christianity?
I do not defend any "Christian" dabbling in politics. (John 18:36) I do not try to coerce anyone. I will engage in respectful conversation of opposing POVs. If I offend, I will stop. Let me know.
Does a Scientist who lies and steals material speak for the whole of science?
Neither does a hypocrite who claims to be Christian speak for Christ. Matthew 7:21-23
As for laws and such, If neither God nor his son are forcing people to act a certain way, why should his followers? John 18:36.
Revelation 18 compares religion involved in politics to something. Check it out if you care too. That's one prophecy I'm personally looking forward to very much.
This post is to inform, not coerce.
Real Christians are not in politics. Use John 18:36, John 17:16 and the first 70 or so years of Christians as a reference.
As I was pointing out to another poster, in Hebrew, soul,(nephesh) means 'that which breathes' the greeks and romans taught undying, ethereal souls. The Hebrews didn't (Ezekiel 18:4) The Bible also calls animals souls. At Genesis 9:4 in the original language Blood is equated with soul. Just so you know. Use info as you will. I follow Jesus' example when it comes to politics. (John 18:36)
But don't think that I'm trying to force my opinion on you, I just want you to know what the real Bible definition of soul is. Use that info as you wish.
Succinctly, If it hasn't failed yet, then it hasn't succeeded either, yet.
Scientists are as genetically defective as the rest of the human family, studies strongly suggest that scientists can be as hardheaded about their pet projects as the rest of us, and more creative and articulate about defending them and attacking others.
For example, there are two main theories of the origin of life, basically replication first or Metabolism first. Two scientists were quoted in a science mag (I forget which) and they both called the other's theory "Out of the realm of science."
1) to totter, shake, slip
a) (Qal) to totter, shake, slip
b) (Niphal) to be shaken, be moved, be overthrown
c) (Hiphil) to dislodge, let fall, drop
d) (Hithpael) to be greatly shaken
So, basically, not going to be destroyed. Actually argues against Christendom's theology, but not mine.
How would you say sunrise sunset and tomorrow's going to be the same? What phrase do you use in casual use for the rotation of earth causing the Sun to become visible? I would like an answer...
Also, Genesis 1 and 2 generally follow the idea that living things started simple and got more complex. The fact that all life has essentially just GATTACA would argue for one source of all life... Big bang is another. Where does matter come from? Energy. Where does energy come from? Matter. *Must invent New rules*
I am very interested in science. I believe in (or am convinced of) the existence of God, mainly because it explains why so much bad happens. And it predicts What this whole discussion is discussing...
However The Scientific Method is Infallible!!!
Oh, I invite you to spend about 6 months with the Shona if you think that shamans don't have power...Actually I would advise against it. Things wouldn't come out so pretty for you.
Religion is basically belief (or conviction) in a higher power or truth. i.e. YHWH or evolution.
And I say evolution is higher truth to dawkins b/c he spends more time preaching it than 99% of Religious people preach their religion.