[_ Old Earth _] Is Space Expanding?

[dad]

dad :D

The exodus. A crowd of people as described in the exodus story would leave an indelible footprint on the landscape. What would they leave behind? Garbage, the dead, signs of massive encampment, artifacts such as dishes and weapons etc.

Ah, you assume some things here. Let's look at that. Now what signs would God leave behind? The pillar of fire or smoke? How about the manna??? The answer is none, of course, because that involves the spiritual. Well, here we have these people, in close proximity to God. Can you give us some science, please that supports the notion that when the Almighty is close at hand for prolonged periods, physical objects, and laws all operate business as usual??

If not, why then you really have no point! The burning bush evidences that, the manna evidences that, these things did not react like physical only materials we know, under the laws of this present. I would have to lean toward the opinion that the reason the physical evidence is not as you expect, is because it was more, much much more than just the physical at play, in those fields of the Lord, at that time!

Now, if you had some ghostbusting equiptment, why, you might have some small hope of getting a clue. Until then, obviously, as far as the spiritual goes, you have no clue. Act like it.

Check the book "The Bible Unearthed" by Finkelstein and Silberman. The current view is that the story arose out of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile delta.

Silly notions, that work with part of the facts, and have no idea there was a cover up by the humiliated rulers of the time.

No Adam and No Eve and no eden. In his book pg. 161 "Understanding the Old Testament", B. Anderson, a Bible scholar, he clearly shows that the creation stories are epic narratives, different from each other, and are designed to answer unanswerable questions.

That is nonsense, and this so called scholar was simply trying to fabalize the bible.

They are not history but a great ancient epic narrative. This view is supported by many other Bible scholars and based on years of research; Borg, Crossan, Anderson, Gordon, Spong, Fox and I could go on.

The unbelieving types that try and turn the truth to fables, we always have with us. Glad they impressed you. Nowthen, if you have the wherwithal to show us their basis for the claim, we could look at that, otherwise, the shadowy doubts don't merit a reply.

To add to that the creation stories are beyond belief even by faith. If taken literally they are absurd. If taken for what they are as metaphor and midrash they present profound truths.

Well, no, they are quite real, and what is absurd is the stupid lies we have been taught as if they were part of science that oppose those eternal truths. The flood, and Eden, etc were quite real. The reason, I think, that men have missed that, is because they have tried to relegate the future and past universe states to the limits of the present. As if this is the be all end all ruler to measure all past and future. No. That is myth. Not science in any way, or proven, or evidenced. Get over it.

You might be tempted to say that that is their opinion. Yes it is but based on a great deal of research not taken from a very profound book that contains many ancient myths, legends, folk tale, poetry, fiction, short story, theology, philosophy and some kernels of history thrown in.

In English, give us their best point, or maybe two. Don't present us with the doubters on a pedestal, as if all need to cringe for no apparent reason.

The Bible is not in and of itself the absolute inerrant word of God.

Yes it is. Prove it isn't or stop making stuff up.

It becomes for Christians, the word of God by virtue of the fact that God speaks to us through the very human words of the Bible.

It is a record preserved, carefully, that goes back to hundreds of years before Christ, and even further, in a less formal written way. To call the spiritual inspiration, and guiding hand of God just very human is to miss the forest for the trees. Strictly your baseless opinion.

As an aside Professor Meek has traced the very name YHWH back to an ancient Arabic storm God. Not really any big deal as I don't believe the Divine cares what we call him/her. "Hebrew Origins", J. T. Meek.

If some son of Hagar, or Abraham used that name for a storm, so what??? There was a rushing and mighty wind at His presence in the NT. Other times, He rode the wings of the wind. Etc. As you might know, many think the Arabs came from Abraham's other wife's line. So??

Even the word Elohim another ancient word for God was borrowed from the Canaanites. That was the name of one of their gods. "Biblica", compiled by dozens of scholars who have done the research.

No. The word is actually unknown, and some have sought to pin the orgins on the Cannanites. But long before the sons of Noah got to sinning badly, like the one that went in and blew Noah, or whatever, and got cursed, and many feel ended up in Cannan, we had the record!
("The Bible attributes the name to Canaan, the son of Ham and the grandson of Noah, whose offspring correspond to the names of various ethnic groups in the land of Canaan," http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canaan).

If I recall, the word Elohim likely refers to a part of the Godhead. There is Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit, remember. Three.

Now I have no problem if you want to read the Bible as literal and historic.

You can't have, because then you would need some proof it wasn't. You don't have it. You never will.

The problem arises when the idea that educated people and those who think for themselves are required to believe in the impossible, turns them away from any faith in the Divine.

Well, for your information the Devine is impossible, as far as limited, temporary state present universe science and laws are concerned. Unless they turn TO the Devine, and impossible, they can't really be turned away from it. If you limit all that was possible in the far past, and the far future to the present laws and state, you are limiting yourself to what will one day be impossible! In the new heavens this present state universe we know will not exist any more, or it's limitations and laws!

This happens far too often. The fact is if I was required to so believe I would probably become a Buddhist or atheist. However, I am a devout Christian.

Oh. OK. Well, relax. God doesn't usually force folks to believe. You can wait till the new heavens come, and find out. Have a mug of toddy with doubting Thomas, and maybe have a great old time.

 

[papajoe]

dad :D

You seem to fail to understand the nature of science and scientific methodology.

You mentioned Adam and Eve above. It is of course a complete myth. None the less it is designed to teach a truth and that is that God created the earth in one fashion or another. It was also an early attempt to explain how evil came into the world. We know much better now.

Then you mention the word interpretation. That is an interesting word and when applied to the sacred scriptures that is exactly what one is reading; the human interpretation of their experiences and in the case of the gospels the writers' interpretations of the experience of Jesus. BTW not the writers to whom the gospels are attributed. They were later additions given to make finding things in the Bible easier.

Shalom
Ted :D

It seems that the more we know the more that Scripture can hold true. Consider Adam and Eve in light of what is now known now about DNA.
Just suppose that the fruit of that tree contained a real poison. A DNA poison. One that added the “self preservation instinctâ€Â.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, then; added the idea (knowledge) that mankind could save themselves (evil knowledge), and didn’t need God. My speculation is that, because the knowledge was passed on to the children it must have been a DNA change.
Keeping in mind that in the Garden (or any Paradise) there would be no need for the self-preservation instinct.

Jesus told us, in the parable of the woman who put leavening in the dough; that the word of God would be totally corrupted. (Mt 13:33)
I too, believe that His word is corrupted through interpretation. Fortunately for Christians we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth. Then; all we have to do is love one another and allow for some differences in personal growth.

 

[papajoe]

[quote="

Same past state myth speculation. Redshifted light could have actually been a result of the universe state change, or creation.

Present light began when the temporary state universe we know came to be. You assume this was the created state. No.

We have been no further than our moon. Perhaps this is a little presumptuous?

You are absolutely correct! We cannot know for sure about these things. However, I see nothing wrong in speculating about how God may have worked out His creation. The more I think about it; the more I look into what scientists speculate and theorize, the more impressed I become.
In the book of Romans (Romans 20), Paul points out that no one can deny that there’s a God because creation is so magnificent.
As long as “Science†is based on the concept of the conservation of energy and matter (where noting is created or destroyed); scientists can never accept the idea of a creator. It’s an oxymoron for them.
As for myself, I love to contemplate these things, and speculate; so long as there’s no conflict with scripture.
And; I think the most clever thing that the “Eternal†God came up ith, is “timeâ€Â.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

A few points.

1. It is a well excepted fact that in logic one cannot prove a negative. For instance try proving there is no such thing as a purple unicorn.

2. You have offered nothing but the great cop out.

3. Wikipedia is not a valid research tool at all. Anyone can post whatever they like whether they be the average person or a scholar. This is hardly an acceptable source of information.

4. The word Elohim is not known! Excuse me but having been trained in Bible translation it is very much a known word. It was borrowed from the Canaanites.

5. The word YHWH was used long before Hagar or Abraham. It is Arabic in origin. It predates these people by hundreds if not thousands of years.

6. As far as the Bible being the inerrant word of God goes it simply is not. Such a contention is not in the least supported by any historical or archaeological evidence.

7. Your contention that such a large group of folks would not leave a footprint because God was near is a real cop out. Just where do you think God resides?

8. I am definitely not making any of this up. I have studied and continue to study at the Vancouver School of theology under some of the world's most respected and recognized Christian scholars.

9. As a Christian pluralist and a believer and having experienced the reality of the risen Lord and the reality of the Father I put my complete trust in God. To make of the Bible what it is not is to quote many scholars a form of idolatry. The word of God is One, the word made flesh. In him I trust.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

[

It seems that the more we know the more that Scripture can hold true. Consider Adam and Eve in light of what is now known now about DNA.
Just suppose that the fruit of that tree contained a real poison. A DNA poison. One that added the “self preservation instinctâ€Â.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, then; added the idea (knowledge) that mankind could save themselves (evil knowledge), and didn’t need God. My speculation is that, because the knowledge was passed on to the children it must have been a DNA change.
Keeping in mind that in the Garden (or any Paradise) there would be no need for the self-preservation instinct.

Jesus told us, in the parable of the woman who put leavening in the dough; that the word of God would be totally corrupted. (Mt 13:33)
I too, believe that His word is corrupted through interpretation. Fortunately for Christians we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth. Then; all we have to do is love one another and allow for some differences in personal growth.

Can you envision a human body with DNA that was 'non poisoned' living forever? That is what Adam would have done, many believe. A mere dna change would not make the sun and earth last forever, so irt would cease to exist unless we are talking much much much much bigger changes.

 

[dad]

You are absolutely correct! We cannot know for sure about these things. However, I see nothing wrong in speculating about how God may have worked out His creation. The more I think about it; the more I look into what scientists speculate and theorize, the more impressed I become.

Well, fine. I simply called onto the carpet the fundamental assumptions upon which the speculations are based. It is those that need to be focused on, and not what is built on them. If the foundation is not sound, the house is simply no good, no matter how fancy we build it.

In the book of Romans (Romans 20), Paul points out that no one can deny that there’s a God because creation is so magnificent.

Even the present state is great. Of course the bible clearly states a new heavens is coming, which will be greater. Speaking of Romans,

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.


I find the evo claim anything but impressive. We are not like fourfooted animals, and birds! Gosh, they even say the flatworm is a relative!!

As long as “Science†is based on the concept of the conservation of energy and matter (where noting is created or destroyed); scientists can never accept the idea of a creator. It’s an oxymoron for them.

To bad for them they know only present energy, and laws. To omit the creator because of temporary universe laws is like the verse says, to become as fools. Literally. That is how God sees them.

As for myself, I love to contemplate these things, and speculate; so long as there’s no conflict with scripture.

Are Adam and Eve in scripture?? The flood? These conflict with the backward extrapolations of this universe state and laws. Under these, those things never happened. Make up your mind who you want to believe.

And; I think the most clever thing that the “Eternal†God came up with, is “timeâ€Â.

Perhaps. people don't really even know what it is. The time we now know is woven into the fabric of this temporary universe, and will soon be no more.

 

[dad]

dad :D

A few points.

1. It is a well excepted fact that in logic one cannot prove a negative. For instance try proving there is no such thing as a purple unicorn.

2. You have offered nothing but the great cop out.

Well, you can't prove a same state past, so don't throw stones! Living in a glass house, and all. I don't need to prove a different future, etc, because it is out of the fishbowl depth of present state science. They have nothing to say about it! - But if THEY claim a same state future and past, they better pony up pronto. Otherwise the so called science is fully exposed as a mere myth. And a sorry little godless shriveled baseless myth at that!

3. Wikipedia is not a valid research tool at all. Anyone can post whatever they like whether they be the average person or a scholar. This is hardly an acceptable source of information.

I find it is usually pretty good. Address the issue, and try and support it, and I will assail it with something other than wiki.

4. The word Elohim is not known! Excuse me but having been trained in Bible translation it is very much a known word. It was borrowed from the Canaanites.

Excuse me, prove it!!!
""the living God." In the vast majority of cases, however, the plural form is treated as if it were a noun in the singular. The odd fact that Hebrew uses a plural noun to designate the sole God of Israel has been explained in various ways. It is not to be understood as a remnant of the polytheism of Abraham's ancestors, or hardly as a "plural of majesty" -- if there is such a thing in Hebrew."
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/Linguis ... lohiym.htm

The sole God is not sole, but includes 3. This is the reason for some getting a little confused. Now, let's see you peg it all to the Canaanites.

5. The word YHWH was used long before Hagar or Abraham. It is Arabic in origin. It predates these people by hundreds if not thousands of years.

Prove it!!! You are talking through your hat here. I call you out. back er up.

6. As far as the Bible being the inerrant word of God goes it simply is not. Such a contention is not in the least supported by any historical or archaeological evidence.

Baloney! Prove it!!

7. Your contention that such a large group of folks would not leave a footprint because God was near is a real cop out. Just where do you think God resides?

You now claim you could find a footprint in the dessert sands 3500 years, or whatever it was, ago??? Let's see how!!! Don't just talk the talk, walk the walk. You gotta be kidding.

8. I am definitely not making any of this up. I have studied and continue to study at the Vancouver School of theology under some of the world's most respected and recognized Christian scholars.

Get a refund quick! You were duped big time. Quit tomorrow.

9. As a Christian pluralist and a believer and having experienced the reality of the risen Lord and the reality of the Father I put my complete trust in God.

Great.

To make of the Bible what it is not is to quote many scholars a form of idolatry. The word of God is One, the word made flesh. In him I trust.

That would be Jesus, and He spoke of the flood. Do you believe Him? He spoke of angels, and the spiritual, do you believe Him? He rose from the dead with a physical, and spiritual merged body, as spoken of in the scriptures, do you believe it?? He built for us a physical and spiritual city, believe it? These heavens HE said, will pass away, believe it??? If not, maybe the pages of the bible might be more useful as toilet paper.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

I find you being somewhat silly. You want proofs do a little reading as I have no intention of writing a book. I can give you a book list with authors if you like. I cannot help you with lectures from the scholars some of who have been Roman Catholics as well. In fact I doubt that anything I would show you you would believe not even if the Lord himself told you.

If Jesus spoke of the flood, and I do say if, he was clearly wrong. It did not happen as written. Now I cannot prove that statement because it is a negative and they cannot be proven. You may wish to try and prove it did though. I will await that proof.

Have a nice day.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

I find you being somewhat silly. You want proofs do a little reading as I have no intention of writing a book. I can give you a book list with authors if you like. I cannot help you with lectures from the scholars some of who have been Roman Catholics as well. In fact I doubt that anything I would show you you would believe not even if the Lord himself told you.

But all I asked was that you back up your OWN claims. If you can't do that, well, put a cork in it.

If Jesus spoke of the flood, and I do say if, he was clearly wrong.

Well He certainly did, including how that all got swept away. (I'll even toss in a free temporary present state heavens bit here as well!)

Matt 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. 37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away

So now we all need to stand back and see you overrule Jesus!!!??? And do so without lifting a finger to bother proving it, as if you could??? Get a grip, man.

It did not happen as written. Now I cannot prove that statement because it is a negative and they cannot be proven. You may wish to try and prove it did though. I will await that proof.

If you have no proof for all you negative junk against what Jesus said, why would I disbelieve Him for no apparent reason other than you seem to feel like folks should do so???

 

[papajoe]

[

It seems that the more we know the more that Scripture can hold true. Consider Adam and Eve in light of what is now known now about DNA.
Just suppose that the fruit of that tree contained a real poison. A DNA poison. One that added the “self preservation instinctâ€Â.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, then; added the idea (knowledge) that mankind could save themselves (evil knowledge), and didn’t need God. My speculation is that, because the knowledge was passed on to the children it must have been a DNA change.
Keeping in mind that in the Garden (or any Paradise) there would be no need for the self-preservation instinct.

Jesus told us, in the parable of the woman who put leavening in the dough; that the word of God would be totally corrupted. (Mt 13:33)
I too, believe that His word is corrupted through interpretation. Fortunately for Christians we have the Holy Spirit to guide us into the truth. Then; all we have to do is love one another and allow for some differences in personal growth.

Can you envision a human body with DNA that was 'non poisoned' living forever? That is what Adam would have done, many believe. A mere dna change would not make the sun and earth last forever, so irt would cease to exist unless we are talking much much much much bigger changes.

Yes. My point was that science and scripture “can†be compatible.
Adam and Eve were still denied access to the tree of life, implying that immortality was still available.
Since all of creation was affected, there must have been more going on than just the DNA ..... unless there’s more to DNA than we now know? ;-)

 

[dad]

Yes. My point was that science and scripture “can†be compatible.
Adam and Eve were still denied access to the tree of life, implying that immortality was still available.
Since all of creation was affected, there must have been more going on than just the DNA ..... unless there’s more to DNA than we now know? ;-)

No matter how much there could be to DNA, it can't make the sun last forever, and earth, and stars.
Science as we know it, and of course, the root word is 'to know' there, deals only with the physical. The present natural, and state of the universe, and the way things are. That cannot be compatible with a new heavens! These ones will pass away. If the state of the past universe was different, they could not be compatible to it, either. That is my point, it had to have also been different, allowing for all the things in the bible to actually have happened.
When you look at the ice age, evolution in the past, rapid continental separation, the flood, and etc., there really is no way to make it fit in the box of present natural science. No way. Many have tried, such as Walt Brown, and made a valiant attempt, but have fallen short, there had to be more at work.

I find science is compatible perfectly with the bible, because I realize the limits of science, and that it can not cover the state of the future and past. That is where the problem lies, not in anything having to do with the present, and how the laws of the universe now work. It is ONLY in assuming they apply in the future and far past, that a problem arises in making science compatible.
A problem so big, that it has led most to consider that the bible must be fables, and I think that is wrong.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

Try looking up evolution on the net. There you will find thousands and thousands of pages showing what I have said.

You want proof but you have offered not one shred of proof for your position. The fact is the Bible is a very human book written by human beings using metaphor and midrash to teach profound truths. There is precious little history there.

Simply put; no evidence for an exodus as described in the Bible then it did not happen that way.

No evidence for a massive invasion of Canaan no massive invasion. In fact it is now known that most of the ultimate Hebrew people came from an internal migration of Canaanites to the high lands because they accepted a monotheistic view which the rest of the Canaanites did not and thus wanted to create a society based on monotheism.

The development of Judaism took centuries. The Divine began as a local house god and then became a village god and then a tribal god and so on. "Theologies in the Old Testament", Gersenberger.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

Try looking up evolution on the net. There you will find thousands and thousands of pages showing what I have said.

Very funny. First of all, I accept that evolution was a part of the abilities creation came with. In the different past, the evolving actually could happen super fast, compared with this present state.
Evolving is not an issue. Evolving from something other than creation, 6000 years ago is an issue. And if you have anything that you think addresses that, give it to us.

You can use a link as support, not as a reading assignment, by the way. I can find links I want to read myself. Give the points, and a link for support, showing that you never just dreamed the stuff up.

You want proof but you have offered not one shred of proof for your position. The fact is the Bible is a very human book written by human beings using metaphor and midrash to teach profound truths. There is precious little history there.

Only if what makes a fact consists solely on your misinformed opinion! To deny the spiritual inspiration, and hand of God in the bible, is to do so with no evidence!! Work on that.

Simply put; no evidence for an exodus as described in the Bible then it did not happen that way.

Nonsense. You sought the wrong kind of evidence. The fact that God was really there is actually evidenced by the lack of physical evidence we would expect if they were simply tripping around the dessert on their own.
There is no reason on this earth to doubt in the slightest that it happened exactly as the bible says it did happen. You have none. The cooked Egyptian books have none, and simply seem to omit all references in a true sore loser fashion. They did lose. We won.

No evidence for a massive invasion of Canaan no massive invasion. In fact it is now known that most of the ultimate Hebrew people came from an internal migration of Canaanites to the high lands because they accepted a monotheistic view which the rest of the Canaanites did not and thus wanted to create a society based on monotheism.

Massive?? It is now 'known'?? Great, prove it. Don't just jaw on as if your fantasy had some reality to it. I don't believe you.

The development of Judaism took centuries.

He did work on them for centuries yes. Believers do not omit the reason for it all, now do they?? They never developed squat unless He led them every step of the way.

The Divine began as a local house god and then became a village god and then a tribal god and so on. "Theologies in the Old Testament", Gersenberger.

Trivializing the Almighty, by clinging to mostly pagan shreds and bits of history is like feeding on garbage. Those who have feasted at the table of the King of Kings simply can't join you in that offer. Let's not do lunch.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

LOL.

Perhaps you should check on the archaeological discoveries over the past 100 years or so.

"The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman clearly demonstrates the inaccuracies in the Bible. Quoting the book would indeed be a waste of my time. They have examined the archaeological evidence, accumulated for the Bible over the last 100+ years and with the support of many other archaeologists have shown the inaccuracies in the Bible.

The fact is; no exodus as written, no flood as written, no arc, no great kingdom of David though his existence is well supported, no artifacts in or near the supposed crossing of the Red (Reed) Sea. I could go on. However, the argument that God being present caused no evidence to be left is merely a cop out from reality.

I have absolutely no intention of rewriting thousands of pages of evidence.

BTW you might also want to check the University of Tel Aviv. The Jewish professors there say exactly the same thing: no exodus. It is related to and arises our of the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta.

The sacred writings are so full of profound truths that you are missing out on how profound they are.

Have a nice day.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

LOL.

Perhaps you should check on the archaeological discoveries over the past 100 years or so.

"The Bible Unearthed", Finkelstein and Silberman clearly demonstrates the inaccuracies in the Bible.

Well, you are right, quoting the book is a waste of time. I looked up a snip about it, and found, as suspected that it is trash.

"Recent stratigraphic analysis of the “Solomonic†gates at Megiddo and Hazor and carbon-14 dates from relevant strata suggest that these imposing monuments may have nothing to do with Solomon at all."
http://www.bibleinterp.com/commentary/F ... 022001.htm

Radioactive dating, I am sorry, is merely a statement of faith in the unprovable notion that present state decay was in effect. You really must be kidding. While it is true that the time of Solomon is in the present state, it is also true that it was much closer to the flood time, and the results of any so called dating need to be held up for a close inspection. Any time you think you can do that, step right up! Until then, put a cork in your snide little baseless doubt talk. I mean that.

The fact is; no exodus as written, no flood as written, no arc, no great kingdom of David though his existence is well supported, no artifacts in or near the supposed crossing of the Red (Reed) Sea. I could go on. However, the argument that God being present caused no evidence to be left is merely a cop out from reality.

Fact is, you like to talk, but are a paper tiger, and can't fight your way out of a paper bag when push comes to shove, metaphorically speaking.

I have absolutely no intention of rewriting thousands of pages of evidence.

Or presenting one speck!!! Go play in the sand. There are adults present.

BTW you might also want to check the University of Tel Aviv. The Jewish professors there say exactly the same thing: no exodus. It is related to and arises our of the story of the expulsion of the Hyksos from the Nile Delta.

Which ones??? We usually find some of each opinion.
"Is It History?

The historical validity of this narrative is controversial. Some scholars stress the lack of Egyptian evidence testifying to the enslavement of the Israelites, pointing out that very little Egyptian influence is discernible in biblical literature and in ancient Hebrew culture. Other scholars, how­ever, claim that it is highly improbable that a nation would choose to invent for itself a history of slavery as an explanation of its origins. If such a tradition exists, it must reflect an historical truth.
Were the Israelites Slaves?

There is no doubt that slavery played a major role in the structure of the Egyptian state. It is also true that some form of single‑god worship was introduced into Egypt by Akenaton in the middle of the fourteenth century B.C.E., and this may have been a source for Jewish monotheism. Finally, the reign of Ramses II (1290-1212 B.C.E.), known for its costly wars and vast building enterprises, may well have been the era of cruel oppression described in Exodus.



But the only contemporary Egyptian source which actually mentions Israel is the stela (pillar with inscription) of King Merneptah from the fifth year of his reign (1207 B.C.E.), recording among his many victories: "Carved off is Ashkelon, seized upon in Gezer…Israel is laid waste, his seed no more." This inscription implies that an entity named Israel existed in Canaan at the time, yet it is difficult to determine precisely what it was. One thing, however, may be regarded as certain: if the Israelites indeed emerged out of Egypt, their migration took place before the end of the thirteenth century B.C.E."
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history ... Exodus.htm

The sacred writings are so full of profound truths that you are missing out on how profound they are.

So, if I, then, did as you do, and look at them as fables, and false stories, I would really be making progress. I see. All this and you can't so much as pony up one tiny bit of evidence why I would do any such foolish thing.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

You accuse me of not offering any evidence. The fact is I've listed sources of information. You on the other hand have offered no acceptable proof for anything.

The earth is only 6000 years old and evolution proceeded more rapidly in the past. Nice try but in error.

That you looked at a snippet amounts to the same thing as Heidi taking evidence out of context and utilizing it for some other purpose. In other words if you haven't read the work you know nothing about it.

I could list hundreds of scholars but feel it would be a waste of time. However, if you would like some names to do some actual research I would be glad to oblige.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

You accuse me of not offering any evidence.

Try presenting some, then and dispel that so far demonstrated fact.

The fact is I've listed sources of information. You on the other hand have offered no acceptable proof for anything.

So what, I could list the bible, does that mean everyone has to run out, and read it cover to cover?? You nned to list your point or two, put it on the table, and see if anyone questions the logic, or basis for your claim. Since you didn't. I picked an example from your own link, and showed it was just same past myth dating that was used. Rather then whine about it, your option is to try and defend that religious dogma, and the basis it works on, as something to be held in higher esteem than God's word. You resort to sniveling, and generalities, and seem to expect all listening to embrace your same past myth, just because you feel it is the thing to do. No. In a debate, the idea is that you present a case, and see how it fares.

The earth is only 6000 years old and evolution proceeded more rapidly in the past. Nice try but in error.

Nice try smy. Prove it. You are in error, says God. Why would I believe you over His book??? Hate to be the one to break the news, but you need to at least have some solid reasons.

That you looked at a snippet amounts to the same thing as Heidi taking evidence out of context and utilizing it for some other purpose. In other words if you haven't read the work you know nothing about it.

A point might be the word for it. From your own link you offered, and refused to take a few points from! If you think you would fare better on a few other points from your source, bring them up. The dating they offered was very much in context. How can anyone know anything about a source you cite, you are supposed to be the one that knows that, you are the one that supposedly read it, and swallowed it. All we know here is what you put on the table. The link should be used for support of the points you raise from it, not as some reading assignment. I have no interest in silly doubts by silly doubters, that you can't even get it together enough to provide a few points from! Get a grip.

I could list hundreds of scholars but feel it would be a waste of time. However, if you would like some names to do some actual research I would be glad to oblige.

Points. Not names. I could throw names out as well. Why quote a 'scholar' if you have no grasp of what it is he or she is trying to communicate?? That is ridiculous. Jesus was tried by scholars, and killed by them. He never used many scholars to write the bible. Scholars are foolish, compared to the wisdom of God, and if they oppose the bible, they are only playing with half a deck. They miss the spiritual, and one cannot miss that, or one is deaf, dumb, and blind to the real goings on in history, the bible, and the future, whether you call them scholars,or not.

 

[Ted]

dad :D

First of all from your response I believe that any points I could list would be a waste of my time. Thus I offer you the sources.

I do not have to stoop to put downs to make my points. They are used when one has nothing else to say.

Have a nice day.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[Ted]

dad :D

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect ... nsion.html
Expansion of the Universe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe
Accelerating universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of your favorite sources I believe.

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Co ... ndUni.html
Expanding Universe

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/a ... 20320.html
SPACE.com -- Universe Expansion is Accelerating, UK and Australian Researchers Say

You want simple answers to that question. Unfortunately the answers are not simple. However, for your reading pleasure and some actual research I have presented the above.

Shalom
Ted :D

 

[dad]

dad :D

First of all from your response I believe that any points I could list would be a waste of my time. Thus I offer you the sources.

I do not have to stoop to put downs to make my points. They are used when one has nothing else to say.

Making a point, then is a last resort for you, OK. Here is my point, then, since those are the new rules of debate. Your entire opinion is bunk. All your links are junk. Have a nice day.
Peace.