Ok. Finally got my login to work, so I dont show up as anonymous.
First, I agree that those are stupid laws you referenced.
But what I do have to tell you is this. "The problem with the Texas law is that it requires "the average person" to apply their own "standards" (read: right wing christians dictate what's decent; Clearly a loophole bypassing Church/State separation)."
There is NO law on separation of Church and State, it was in a letter AND it is often used far out of context. The original intent was ONLY to keep the government OUT of church business and NOT the other way around.
Gartner i think invented FUD.... I have yet to meet a gartner person that was capable of finding their arse with both hands and a flash light.
I have also yet to get a straight answer out of anyone from gartner... how they get away with charging for their "solution conference" phone calls ill never under stand.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.".... that was said by hawkings..... not the bible:)
Lets try again, im not talk about non specific prophecy, I do mean things that are very specific.
In the old testament there are numerous prophecy's to the messiah, and Jesus filled EACH one, not 1 of them, not a few of them, not even most of them, 100% of them.
That is only 1 example, the most important one, but there are others.
So leave Nostradamus out of it along with his "one size fits all" prophecy and look at the real thing.
I agree, neither biogenesis nor a sky wizard are the reasons we are here.
Just to clarify, if you were to do some homework on the Bible, you could tell that with so many authors and written over 1400 years, yet it all comes together, and every prophecy has come true.... well if you would actually want to seriously learn more ill go into detail, but if you just want something to shot down without the knowledge behind it there really is no need.
Maybe people turn to these resources because we are tired of being lied to by companies and governements that only see profit in making drugs rather than cures?
I am more than willing to hear why you believe science is right in this matter. It doesnt change the fact that nothing can form from nothing without a creator.
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, how did this ever happen?" Soren Luthrup, Swedish embryologist
"This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being." Sir Isaac Newton
You know whats funny, the space scientists (from a show I saw yesterday on discovery) say the whole universe is only 12 billion years old.
So is science so jacked up that they have THAT much of a difference?
Yet noone can believe this book we have that lays it all out for us.
"Scientists that go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact." Dr. Newton Tomasian, scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).
So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.
All I can say is, when I read it, I also go back to the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic words to better understand their meaning, and look at what was written/said in the context of THAT time period.
How in the world can that be a LACK of reading comprehension or critical thinking?
The difference here is in fact that I follow up and try to gain as much knowledge as possible, you however take the words at current english face value.. or read what someone else has to say, out of context i might add, and run with that.
Actually, the problem here is if you have ever read the Bible, you were missing something.
Isnt it funny though, how I dont insult your intellect because you use your free will to choose not to believe it, yet you feel the need to try to insult mine because of what I believe.. As I recall something along that very line is in fact in the Bible.
Ok. I have gone through several of these listings that mention contradiction of the bible.
All i can say is, Not all words from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translate or have an EXACT equivalent in english. If you honestly want to judge for yourself what is true or not in the Bible, you have to look at the original words, and how they translate, how they fit. with some research it all does make sence, im not making this up, I have done my own research when I was unsure that it was all true. After the research, i know its true, but i also do still go back and look at the original translation meaning.
to give an example: This is from the infidel page BTW.
-- Rabbits do not chew their cud
"LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it." -- OK, he stopped part way there and only included HALF of where he got this information. Lets get the FULL story here. --
"'MT' is the Masoretic text, which is a late Hebrew transmission of the OT.
Meritt is apparently quite proud of himself here, having gone--for the one and only time--to the original Hebrew for answers. (Guess translation issues are important after all.) Too bad he didn't dig a little further.
Two issues are at hand: the definition of 'cud' and that of 'chewing'. Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Cuds first, chewies afterwards.
First, gerah (or gehrah) is indeed the word used here, and--this is important--it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.
Second, the process rabbits go through is called refection, and it is not just 'dung' that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for 'dung' was not used here. Indeed, contrary to Meritt's assertion, that the word gehrah also means 1/20th of a shekel actually gives us a hint here! 1/20th of a shekel is of little worth, but it does have worth. Where the word for 'dung' is used in the Bible, it implies something defiled, unclean, or useless. But in lapine terms, 'dung' is not useless: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material--UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. (It's an efficient way of getting more vitamins and nutrients, we're told, but I think I'll stick with my Flintstones chewables, thank you very much.) The pellets have some minute value, much as 1/20th of a shekel has some value.
Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call 'chewing the cud'. They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. (This also, presumably, helps them get the most out of their food, but I'm not trying it.)
So, let's see... partially digested food. Partially digested food. Seems to be a common element here. Could it be that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food? Could it be that the process is not the issue, just the object?" -- There is much more, but I dont want to make some massive post that no one will want to do their own research for:)
Well, about Harry Potter, we can prove, today, observationally that he was dreamed up by a person and only ever existed on paper.
But the Bible on the other hand, was written over a 1400 year period, 66 books by several authors. And you can map out things that either took a massive load of collusion, or has to be fact. There was no internet back then, no blogs, and things just match up far to well to easily discount the meaning.
Slashdot Mirror
No, meaning I finally got the new password after trying to get it reset.
Ok. Finally got my login to work, so I dont show up as anonymous.
First, I agree that those are stupid laws you referenced.
But what I do have to tell you is this. "The problem with the Texas law is that it requires "the average person" to apply their own "standards" (read: right wing christians dictate what's decent; Clearly a loophole bypassing Church/State separation)."
There is NO law on separation of Church and State, it was in a letter AND it is often used far out of context. The original intent was ONLY to keep the government OUT of church business and NOT the other way around.
Gartner i think invented FUD.... I have yet to meet a gartner person that was capable of finding their arse with both hands and a flash light.
I have also yet to get a straight answer out of anyone from gartner... how they get away with charging for their "solution conference" phone calls ill never under stand.
We have seen that living things are too improbable and too beautifully "designed" to have come into existence by chance.".... :)
that was said by hawkings..... not the bible
Oh, Ok, then how did everything start? I see we all have been wrong, please enlighten us :)
Wow, you took THAT totally out of context.
Lets try again, im not talk about non specific prophecy, I do mean things that are very specific.
In the old testament there are numerous prophecy's to the messiah, and Jesus filled EACH one, not 1 of them,
not a few of them, not even most of them, 100% of them.
That is only 1 example, the most important one, but there are others.
So leave Nostradamus out of it along with his "one size fits all" prophecy and look at the real thing.
I agree, neither biogenesis nor a sky wizard are the reasons we are here.
Just to clarify, if you were to do some homework on the Bible, you could tell that with so many authors
and written over 1400 years, yet it all comes together, and every prophecy has come true.... well if you
would actually want to seriously learn more ill go into detail, but if you just want something to shot down
without the knowledge behind it there really is no need.
But you have NOT seen life come from NOTHING.
You also have not seen a computer be created by nothing from nothing, it was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED.
The type of evolution (the only changes are (bad) mutations) is proven yes, but our origins are not.
Both Evolution (something from nothing) and Biblical teachings are FAITH based.. yes BOTH of them.
Unless you were there when life began you can not state as a FACT what you wish to state, it is a faith
based answer.
Why? Even the Bible said the earth was round when people said it was flat.
Maybe people turn to these resources because we are tired of being lied to by companies and governements that only see profit in making drugs rather than cures?
I am more than willing to hear why you believe science is right in this matter. It doesnt change the fact
that nothing can form from nothing without a creator.
Let me just ask you this, do you REALLY believe that all life came by accident? out of nothing???
http://www.aiias.edu/ict/vol_11/11cc_247-254.htm
Ok, try this biologist's view then.
molecular biology, organismal biology, environmental biology, and human biology.
"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked as the greatest deceit in the
history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, how did this
ever happen?"
Soren Luthrup, Swedish embryologist
"This most beautiful system of sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the
counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being."
Sir Isaac Newton
Is newton not a real person either?
You know whats funny, the space scientists (from a show I saw yesterday on discovery) say the whole universe is only 12 billion years old.
So is science so jacked up that they have THAT much of a difference?
Yet noone can believe this book we have that lays it all out for us.
"Scientists that go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the
story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not
have one iota of fact."
Dr. Newton Tomasian, scientist for the Atomic Energy Commission
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."
When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).
So by reasonably equating John's "giving up" of the spirit with total event of the final cry, the problem is resolved. We need only recognize that John is focusing on what Jesus said that was not shouted publicly - the plea of thirst, the statement of completion, and the turning over of responsibility for Jesus' mother to John. This fits in with his station at the foot of the cross.
At this point, ill let all of you believe you are descendants from monkey.. I know I am not, and thats what really matters.
All I can say is, when I read it, I also go back to the Greek Hebrew and Aramaic words to better understand their meaning,
and look at what was written/said in the context of THAT time period.
How in the world can that be a LACK of reading comprehension or critical thinking?
The difference here is in fact that I follow up and try to gain as much knowledge as possible, you however
take the words at current english face value.. or read what someone else has to say, out of context i might add,
and run with that.
Actually, the problem here is if you have ever read the Bible, you were missing something.
Isnt it funny though, how I dont insult your intellect because you use your free will to choose not
to believe it, yet you feel the need to try to insult mine because of what I believe.. As I recall
something along that very line is in fact in the Bible.
Ok. I have gone through several of these listings that mention contradiction of the bible.
... partially digested food. Partially digested food. Seems to be a common element here. Could it be that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food? Could it be that the process is not the issue, just the object?" :)
All i can say is, Not all words from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek translate or have an EXACT equivalent in
english. If you honestly want to judge for yourself what is true or not in the Bible, you have to look at the
original words, and how they translate, how they fit. with some research it all does make sence, im not making this up, I have done my own research when I was unsure that it was all true. After the research, i know its true, but i also do still go back and look at the original translation meaning.
to give an example:
This is from the infidel page BTW.
--
Rabbits do not chew their cud
"LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it."
--
OK, he stopped part way there and only included HALF of where he got this information. Lets get the FULL story here.
--
"'MT' is the Masoretic text, which is a late Hebrew transmission of the OT.
Meritt is apparently quite proud of himself here, having gone--for the one and only time--to the original Hebrew for answers. (Guess translation issues are important after all.) Too bad he didn't dig a little further.
Two issues are at hand: the definition of 'cud' and that of 'chewing'. Let's take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Cuds first, chewies afterwards.
First, gerah (or gehrah) is indeed the word used here, and--this is important--it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.
Second, the process rabbits go through is called refection, and it is not just 'dung' that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for 'dung' was not used here. Indeed, contrary to Meritt's assertion, that the word gehrah also means 1/20th of a shekel actually gives us a hint here! 1/20th of a shekel is of little worth, but it does have worth. Where the word for 'dung' is used in the Bible, it implies something defiled, unclean, or useless. But in lapine terms, 'dung' is not useless: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material--UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. (It's an efficient way of getting more vitamins and nutrients, we're told, but I think I'll stick with my Flintstones chewables, thank you very much.) The pellets have some minute value, much as 1/20th of a shekel has some value.
Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call 'chewing the cud'. They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. (This also, presumably, helps them get the most out of their food, but I'm not trying it.)
So, let's see
--
There is much more, but I dont want to make some massive post that no one will want to do their own research for
Ummmm ok... but im still waiting on these mythical contradictions..... I googled for some, so far none that were legit.
I have not seen that shot down... but with that logic.. I say darwins theory was shot down!
Ok, i said it was shot down.. must be true ehh??
So far no one has pointed out any contradictions for the Bible... tell me some.
I do not know of any.
Ill still go google them, but it sounds like you had some in mind, id like to hear them.
Well, about Harry Potter, we can prove, today, observationally that he was dreamed up by a person and only ever existed on paper.
But the Bible on the other hand, was written over a 1400 year period, 66 books by several authors. And you can map out things that
either took a massive load of collusion, or has to be fact. There was no internet back then, no blogs, and things just match up far to well to easily discount the meaning.