[_ Old Earth _] Isn't it funny.....

[Pale^Rider**]

Scientists at NASA's Ames Research Center (as quoted by a Reader's Digest article entitled How Life On Earth Began ) that the ingredients needed to form a human being can be found in clay. "The Biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark."
No, I would say, it's right on it! Scientists have laughed at the possibility of Genesis having any scientific credibility whatsoever....laughed as in thought it absurd.....and yet, the more we learn (100's and 1000's of years later), the more we find The Bible to be scientifically correct!!
I'll add more later....but,
How could someone choose to not believe? Why even take a chance with your soul and eternity? Why take the chance? Jesus forgives!!!!

I'd just like to add that this isn't even a theory. I find it interesting that you used Readers Digest (clearly the highest echelon of scientific journalism out there).

What's even more interesting is that you crow like the cock of the walk when science agrees with certain subjectively interpreted passages, yet when science disagrees, you mock science. If your basis for corroboration of the bible comes from science, why aren't you a little less critical of science?

You're missing the point of the whole thread........i'm proving how far behind science is.....most of the time 2000 years behind the Bible. I'm showing how, "once science truly learns all there is to know......it's eureka, the Bible was right all along....."
I'm not mocking science........given enough time to study, scientists will catch up to God's Word. I do like to mock the so-called "educated thinkers", however........I was once one myself. Cock a doodle dooooooo!!!!

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That's the most accurate, scientific statement ever written about the blood!
It is the blood that carries on all the life processes of the body.
It is the blood that causes growth, builds new cells, grows bone and flesh, stores fat, makes hair and nails.
It is the blood that feeds and supports all the organs of the body. If the blood supply be cut off from an arm, that arm will immediately begin to die and rot.
It is the blood that repairs the body. It is the blood that clots wounds, that grows new flesh, new skin and even new nerves.
It is the blood that fights disease. When they give you a vaccine against a disease, they give you a shot into your blood stream.

For thousands of years, doctors treated people by a practice called "bleeding." They thought illnesses could be cured by removing blood. In 1799, less than 200 years ago, George Washington was literally bled to death. They bled poor George four times, the last time they took over a quart of his blood! They didn't know, but they were literally draining away his life by removing his blood. (These "scientists" remind me of the "educated thinkers" of today's time. : ) It wasn't until the early 1900's that a man named Dr. Lister discovered that the blood provides the bodies immune system - THE LIFE OF THE FLESH IS IN THE BLOOD!

The Birmingham Post Herald, February 26, 1988, told the story of Mike Thomas. Mike was working at a construction site when he fell 70 feet. As he was falling, a cable wrapped around his arm and severed his hand a few inches above the wrist. A fellow worker carried his severed hand to the hospital. Because of serious internal injuries, doctors couldn't at that time reattach Thomas's hand. Instead, they attached his hand to blood vessels on his abdomen wall to "keep it alive". Two months later, the doctors removed it from his abdomen and reattached it to his arm. According to the report, UAB was the first in the nation to perform such a task! Exactly what the Bible said in 1490 B.C.! Keep feeding that hand blood, and it'll stay alive - the LIFE of the FLESH is in the BLOOD! Addistionally, a brother of mine had his thumb shot off in Somalia....it was sewed into his stomach so that the blood could keep the thumb alive until it could be surgically re-attached...some 8 days later.

Don't you find that odd? What Moses wrote in 1490 B.C., the brightest minds man can produce, are just now discovering! How can that Amazing Book, written thousands of years ago, by men with such limited knowledge, be so far ahead the best mankind can produce in 6,000 years? Because GOD wrote it!!!

Cock-a-doodle-doooooooooo!!!!

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Re: More to laugh about......

Isn't it embarrassing how science always lags about 2000 years behind that awesome and God-led Book!

All one needs to know is found in that awesome Book....

Why take a chance with eternity?

Did you just forget to include the errors in the bible in regards to it referencing a flat earth or was that intentional. How about the one about the sun revolving around the earth. Surly if the bible is a scientific manual it should have gotten this one right.
Ecclesiastes
1:5,
"The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his
place where he arose."
As to claiming the bible is correct the fact is some things are correct and some things are not. That is why we have science.
Here try this one for biblical scientific accuracy.
http://www.fred.net/tds/blaylock/webcopy/hmp28.html

again, rez.....i find only proof of your mental constipation........Here's the Truth behind the Scriptures......the Truth that you've been blinded to......i'll try and go slow......

Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?
Because God said so!! ....in The Bible!!!


It's still not too late, rez.....

 

[reznwerks]

Re: More to laugh about......

http://www.fred.net/tds/blaylock/webcopy/hmp28.html[/url]

again, rez.....i find only proof of your mental constipation........Here's the Truth behind the Scriptures......the Truth that you've been blinded to......i'll try and go slow......

Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?
Because God said so!! ....in The Bible!!!


It's still not too late, rez.....[/quote:78adb]
Pale Rider if you keep this up you will be well on your way to outdoing Gary. Maybe it's only an honest oversight on your part but again we have gone over this time and time again. Some things in the bible are correct and some are not. Science makes the determination. Here are some errors that if you read your bible you would realize your claim of the bible being scientifically accurate in all cases is simply absurd.
The bible says that
The Earth is flat!
- The flat Earth is established and can never move?! The Sun hurries back to where
it rises?!
- The Earth has pillars?!
- The Earth has Edges?! The wicked might get shaken off of it and fall off in
space?!
- Does Isaiah 40:22 really say that Earth is Round? The Earth is a flat circle?!
- Christian Theologians' Commentaries that further suggest that the Earth
is flat.

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

In case you skipped your science class the sun doesn't move the earth does. Well maybe that skipped that class if you were home schooled.

Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23

Bats identified as "birds"?
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19

Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6
So pale rider to have even one error as I have shown several means that the bible is not Gods word. As to the claims that are correct over civilizations existed at the time that were far superior in intellect than those in the middle east. Knowledge could easily and probably had been passed down from these other trading partners. The Egyptians were already doing surgery on the brain at this time.There is evidecne that stone age man was doing this as well 3000bc. The pyramids were a wonder to those even at the time of Jesus. Sorry the bible is not the supernatural wonder of knowledge that you have been led to believe. Here are some examples of ancient medical treatment by people that didn't follow the bible. Cataract operations were done in ancient India and were routine in Rome. This was done routinely by a famous Roman surgeon Cornelius Celsus and described it in his book "ON MEDICINE". This book was the bible of physicians for 1700 years.

Long before Galen, ancient Chinese physicians realized that the pulse seemed harder in people who ate a lot of salty food. It may have been the first recognition of the link between too much table salt and high blood pressure. I suppose that knowledge could not have possibly filtered to the middle east about this.
So Pale Rider plain and simple the bible is not a textbook. If it has some claims that are true it is because the knowledge probably came from another source and it was recorded.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Rezn, you forget one thing, God is not bound by science. Until you understand that, the Bible can seem as fake as a magicians slight of hand.

 

[Asimov]

Rezn, you forget one thing, God is not bound by science. Until you understand that, the Bible can seem as fake as a magicians slight of hand.

Then stop saying it's scientific.

 

[Asimov]

Leviticus 17:11, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood." That's the most accurate, scientific statement ever written about the blood!
It is the blood that carries on all the life processes of the body.
It is the blood that causes growth, builds new cells, grows bone and flesh, stores fat, makes hair and nails.
It is the blood that feeds and supports all the organs of the body. If the blood supply be cut off from an arm, that arm will immediately begin to die and rot.
It is the blood that repairs the body. It is the blood that clots wounds, that grows new flesh, new skin and even new nerves.
It is the blood that fights disease. When they give you a vaccine against a disease, they give you a shot into your blood stream.

That's all very well. The Egyptians had the most advanced medicine of their time, including surgical procedures. Some civilizations in the Indus Valley region had plumbing and flushing toilets. The greeks new the earth was spherical, and even calculated the diameter of the earth to within a few thousand kilometers.

It's not entirely surprising that people would know that if you cut someone or something, and they kept bleeding, they would die. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Particularly cultures which practiced human sacrifice.

What's the most interest aspect of your posts is that you conveniently ignore other posts which refute your claims. Interesting, and disturbing.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Rezn, you forget one thing, God is not bound by science. Until you understand that, the Bible can seem as fake as a magicians slight of hand.

Then stop saying it's scientific.

Who's calling the Bible scientific? All I'm pointing to is the fact that science can be used to explain some events in the Bible. The Bible is a book of fact and yet not everything in it can be explained. Meaning that there is a God.

 

[Asimov]

Who's calling the Bible scientific? All I'm pointing to is the fact that science can be used to explain some events in the Bible. The Bible is a book of fact and yet not everything in it can be explained. Meaning that there is a God.

That has got to be the worst reasoning I have ever come across. Brutus, please. You've shown yourself to be reasonably able to argue intellectually, if not ask some very good questions.

I shouldn't even bother replying to your argument.

Your assertions:

1)The bible is fact
2)Some things in the bible cannot be explained.
3)Therefore God.

Assertions that must be proved:

1)The bible is fact.
2)Why unexplained "facts" in the bible prove God.

My assertions:
1)The bible is not fact due to some gross errors as shown in this thread.
2)Unexplained "facts" can be explained.

Assertions that must be proved:

1)I've already posted an argument in this thread, same as reznwerks, which provide ample argumentation as to the non-factual nature of the bible.

2)Your unexplained facts surely can be explained. Works of fiction are generally fictitious, and have fantastical ideas which would not and do not conform to the reality of this universe.

 

[huj05]

Do you know that clay is made up of TONS of diffrent elements? and that there are THOUSANDS of diffrent kinds of clay, and there are MILLIONS of diffrent things that also have the same elements as clay?

basically you are trying to say that "the bible said humans are made of dirt, which is like clay, which has (ex) carbon, which is found in humans

also, god must have made water through clay too, because clay has hydrogen, and oxygen, (not to mention zinc, iron, copper, helium, sulfur,arsenic,chlorine,sodium,potasium) the list goes on and on...

This is one of the WORST analogies you could possibly make using the bible to back up science :/

I mean, the human body probabyl has traces of 90% of the elements. So what are the odds? the fact you got sounds like one of those "and humans are 97% water! hahah" and "i bet you didnt know that an apple and a potatoe taste exactly the same, the only reason yoru brain perceives them as diffrent is because of their odor, try it, plug your nose and eat one of each (it really works)"

 

[Blazin Bones]

In response to Asimov's ascertation.

1.What gross errors, the fact that God is above science since He created everything that science can explain?
2. Ficticious? Why then are many events in the Bible supported with Archiology, Pyhsiology and outside sources?

In response to give reasoning for my asertation #3.
3. Because of the fact that many things are unexplained but supported by archiology, among other things, something (someone) must have caused them. This once again returns us to our favorite wager. 8-) Who to choose, God or coincidence ? I choose God.

 

[Asimov]

1.What gross errors, the fact that God is above science since He created everything that science can explain?

we're not talkin about your fantastical conception, we're talking about the bible. The bible has many errors in it.

2. Ficticious? Why then are many events in the Bible supported with Archiology, Pyhsiology and outside sources?

haha...brutus, don't confuse fiction with total fallacy. Homers Iliad is supported by Archaeology, and outside sources, that doesn't mean the events told in the Iliad actually happened the way Homer told them.

Physiology, bubba? So I guess we're wrong and beetles have four legs.

3. Because of the fact that many things are unexplained but supported by archiology, among other things, something (someone) must have caused them. This once again returns us to our favorite wager. 8-) Who to choose, God or coincidence ? I choose God. [/color]

The fact? Brutus, before stating things as fact, one must prove them.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Re: More to laugh about......

rez wrote:The bible says that
The Earth is flat!
I've already pointed out that the Bible does not reference a flat earth......

remember this?:
Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?
Because God said so!! ....in The Bible!!!

another:
Job 26:7, ". . . and hangeth the earth upon NOTHING." During the time of Job, it was believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders! Nobody believed the earth "hangeth upon NOTHING!" Job is the oldest book in the Bible! Written over 3500 years ago! How did Job know something that was IMPOSSIBLE to know during his day?
and another:
Luke 17:30, "Even thus shall it be IN THE DAY when the son of man is revealed. (vs 31) IN THAT DAY . . . (vs 34) I tell you, IN THAT NIGHT . . . " Nobody in Luke's day thought it could be day and night at the same time! They thought the earth was flat! Luke was written around 65 A.D. How did Luke know something that the scientists didn't know until the 16th century?
You see, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is flat.....that is your assumption of what you read.....

rez wrote:
Pale Rider if you keep this up you will be well on your way to outdoing Gary. Maybe it's only an honest oversight on your part but again we have gone over this time and time again. Some things in the bible are correct and some are not. Science makes the determination. Here are some errors that if you read your bible you would realize your claim of the bible being scientifically accurate in all cases is simply absurd.
rez, given enought time....scientists will catch up to the Bible.....this is my belief....whether you and i are around to see it or not....

rez wrote:
Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23

What does this prove....you lost me....seriously.....just elaborate a little bit more on this one....


rez wrote:
Bats identified as "birds"?
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, and the vulture, and the kite after his kind; Every raven after his kind; and the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, and the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, and the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat."
Leviticus 11:13-19
This only proves a discrepency in translations......this scripture is actually tranlated as "winged creatures"....not the scientific "birds"......very good point though.

rez wrote:
Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6
I must claim ignorance here.....does a rabbitt not eat cud? The cotton-tails where i live eat the same clover that the cow eats......am i missing something to your point? Seriously asking here.....because as a farm boy myself, we called this clover that our cattle ate in the springtime, cud....or better yet my dad and grandmother did.

Back on the point of "isn't it funny...."

Psalm 8:8, ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." After reading Psalm 8:8, Matthew Maury, a U.S. Naval officer, set out to locate these curious "paths in the seas." He discovered the oceans have paths which flow through them. He became known as the "pathfinder of the seas". How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean! HOW DID HE KNOW?

 

[Pale^Rider**]

asimov wrote:That's all very well. The Egyptians had the most advanced medicine of their time, including surgical procedures. Some civilizations in the Indus Valley region had plumbing and flushing toilets.
And yet, these same Egyptian educated minds believed that the stars were the souls of dead people who were now gods. And, That awesome Book says,"And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. . ." (Acts 7:22) And yet, the "superstitions and mythology" of Egypt are not in the books written by Moses! In fact, after 6,000 years of "discoveries and advancements" - that Amazing Book, can stand beside the most advanced medical, scientific, and historical books available!

as wrote:The greeks new the earth was spherical, and even calculated the diameter of the earth to within a few thousand kilometers.
And yet these same greeks believed a god named atlas held the earth on his shoulders. So your point about the greeks?

as wrote:It's not entirely surprising that people would know that if you cut someone or something, and they kept bleeding, they would die. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know this. Particularly cultures which practiced human sacrifice.
And back to my point: evidently it took those "educated minds" and so-called scientists 2000 years to realize it.....because as i stated, "they" almost bled poor old George Washington to death. This is my point.....science is behind.....and the more they "discover" the more the Bible holds true.

as wrote:What's the most interest aspect of your posts is that you conveniently ignore other posts which refute your claims. Interesting, and disturbing.
Disturbing? what's disturbing? You want disturbing, I'll tell you what hell may be like.....that will "disturb" the boxers off of you....

 

[bibleberean]

We have two main perspectives and types of people here.

Those who believe that the bible is the word of God and is filled with wisdom and truth and those who search for anything they can to discredit the bible.

We have the children of light and the children of darkness.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

 

[cubedbee]

Re: More to laugh about......

rez wrote:The bible says that
The Earth is flat!
I've already pointed out that the Bible does not reference a flat earth......

remember this?:
Isaiah 40:22, "It is he that sitteth upon the CIRCLE OF THE EARTH." How did Isaiah know in 700 B.C. the earth is round? The scientists of Isaiah's day thought the earth was flat. They didn't discover the earth is round until the early 1500s when Magellan sailed around the world. How did Isaiah know something over 2000 years ahead of science?
Because God said so!! ....in The Bible!!!

You are completely wrong about your historical facts. Ancient Greeks new the world was round by 350 BC , as did Europe when Columbus set sail for America. http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Scolumb.htm

And I will repeat this for the umpteenth time--a circle is not the same thing as a sphere. A circle is two dimensional, a sphere is three dimensional. Yes, people desribes spheres as circular, but people also desrcibe plates as circular. So, the phrase "circle of the earth" implies either a sphere or a plate shape. Since their are passages in the Bible that say the whole world can be seen from a high vantage point, we can eliminate the sphere as a possibility. The earth is shaped like a plate if you are to use the Bible as your only scientific reference.

another:
Job 26:7, ". . . and hangeth the earth upon NOTHING." During the time of Job, it was believed a god named Atlas held the earth on his shoulders! Nobody believed the earth "hangeth upon NOTHING!" Job is the oldest book in the Bible! Written over 3500 years ago! How did Job know something that was IMPOSSIBLE to know during his day?

Actually, Atlas held the heavens on his shoulders, not the eart. And by the time the Greeks had figured out the earth was a sphere, they also had abandoned such mythologies. They instead developed a heliocentric model of the universe, with the earth at the center, hanging on nothing.

and another:
Luke 17:30, "Even thus shall it be IN THE DAY when the son of man is revealed. (vs 31) IN THAT DAY . . . (vs 34) I tell you, IN THAT NIGHT . . . " Nobody in Luke's day thought it could be day and night at the same time! They thought the earth was flat! Luke was written around 65 A.D. How did Luke know something that the scientists didn't know until the 16th century?
You see, the Bible doesn't say that the earth is flat.....that is your assumption of what you read.....

Already established that the Greeks knew the world wasn't flat. Given their model of the univese, they would certainly know that when the cun was on one side of earth giving light, the other would be in darkness.

rez wrote:
Insects with four feet?
"Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."
Leviticus 11:21-23

What does this prove....you lost me....seriously.....just elaborate a little bit more on this one....

Insects have six legs, not four. You can go pick up a beetle and confirm it for yourself.

rez wrote:
Rabbits claimed to chew their cud?
"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."
Leviticus 11:6
I must claim ignorance here.....does a rabbitt not eat cud? The cotton-tails where i live eat the same clover that the cow eats......am i missing something to your point? Seriously asking here.....because as a farm boy myself, we called this clover that our cattle ate in the springtime, cud....or better yet my dad and grandmother did.

Cud is not a kind of grass. Cud is simply food that has been regurgitated to be chewed again. Cows do this, rabbits do not.

Back on the point of "isn't it funny...."

Psalm 8:8, ". . . whatsoever passeth through the PATHS OF THE SEAS." After reading Psalm 8:8, Matthew Maury, a U.S. Naval officer, set out to locate these curious "paths in the seas." He discovered the oceans have paths which flow through them. He became known as the "pathfinder of the seas". How did David (the writer of Psalms) know, over 2,000 years ago, there were "paths in the seas"? David probably never even saw an ocean! HOW DID HE KNOW?

David was the king of a land that bordered the sea. He most certainly had seen it. And perhaps he had seen schools of fish, and noticed that while there is all this open water, the fish stay together and follow each other, along the "paths of the sea" Regardless, Matthew Maury didn't discover anything that wasn't already known. http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/maury.html

The Bible contains spiritual truths of God. He used men with an innacurate, pre-scientific worldview to write the Bible, and he allowed theier misconceptions to stand, as they are theologically meaningless. No intellectually honest person can read the Bible and claim it is flawless in every detail. There are literally hundreds of inconstencies that one will find when reading it, and while these can all be rationalized or explained away or denied if one first believes the Bible is innerrant, a plain readig of the Bible has them. The Bible does not claim that it is the absolutely innerrant, and neither should Christians.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

I stated what was actually documented many many years ago and has been proven and read many, many times.....only what the Greeks and Egyptians once believed. It doesn't have any impact on what we're discussing when they finally threw it out. I pointed out that these "educated minds" believed some pretty far-fetched things by today's standards.

cb wrote:
So, the phrase "circle of the earth" implies either a sphere or a plate shape.
Implies to whom? Not me....it implies to me that my God knows exactly what a round earth and a flat spherical object is....and He knew what He was writing.

cb wrote:
Actually, Atlas held the heavens on his shoulders, not the eart. And by the time the Greeks had figured out the earth was a sphere, they also had abandoned such mythologies. They instead developed a heliocentric model of the universe, with the earth at the center, hanging on nothing.

My apoligies....but that proves what?

Yes, einstein i know that insects have six legs, i was referring to the actual translation of the scripture:21However, there are some exceptions that you may eat. These include insects that jump with their hind legs: 22locusts of all varieties, crickets, bald locusts, and grasshoppers. All these may be eaten. 23But you are to consider detestable all other swarming insects that walk or crawl.
But, i guess we could get the ebonics or the street-wise translations of the Bible and analyze how it reads.....

The cud thing....again, I plead ignorance....and would likely agree with your last paragraph on this.

cb wrote:
David was the king of a land that bordered the sea. He most certainly had seen it. And perhaps he had seen schools of fish, and noticed that while there is all this open water, the fish stay together and follow each other, along the "paths of the sea" Regardless, Matthew Maury didn't discover anything that wasn't already known. http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/maury.html
Thanks for clearing that up about Maury....I stand corrected and even learned something today....but, it still doesn't change what David knew thousands of years ago......good article, too.

 

[cubedbee]

I stated what was actually documented many many years ago and has been proven and read many, many times.....only what the Greeks and Egyptians once believed. It doesn't have any impact on what we're discussing when they finally threw it out. I pointed out that these "educated minds" believed some pretty far-fetched things by today's standards.

The point isn't about whether the Greeks once believed something wrong. You are offering scientific facts supported by the Bible and saying that the prove the Bible is written by God since ancient man couldn't have known those facts. I am showing you that ancient Greek pagans were able to figure out these scientific facts without any help from God. If they could figure it out on their own, so could Jews.

cb wrote:
So, the phrase "circle of the earth" implies either a sphere or a plate shape.
Implies to whom? Not me....it implies to me that my God knows exactly what a round earth and a flat spherical object is....and He knew what He was writing.

I don't know how to put it any simplier. People desrcibe both discs and spheres as circular. Ask anyone what shape a CD is. Or a race track. Or a frisbee. These are all discs, and these are all described as circles.

cb wrote:
Actually, Atlas held the heavens on his shoulders, not the eart. And by the time the Greeks had figured out the earth was a sphere, they also had abandoned such mythologies. They instead developed a heliocentric model of the universe, with the earth at the center, hanging on nothing.

My apoligies....but that proves what?

It proves that ancient pagans can discover the same scientific truths as the writers of the Bible. So, your argument that the scientific truths in the Bible prove divine authorship is false.

Yes, einstein i know that insects have six legs, i was referring to the actual translation of the scripture:21However, there are some exceptions that you may eat. These include insects that jump with their hind legs: 22locusts of all varieties, crickets, bald locusts, and grasshoppers. All these may be eaten. 23But you are to consider detestable all other swarming insects that walk or crawl.
But, i guess we could get the ebonics or the street-wise translations of the Bible and analyze how it reads.....

You quoted from the New Living Translation. It is a translation that paraphrases the Bible, not directly translating the original words of the inspired writers, but rather putting the general ideas in their own words. The KJV and the NASB both translate word for word, and verse 21 begins: "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon [all] four" or "Yet these you may eat among all the winged insects which walk on all fours" The actual translation of the Scripture, and the actual original Hebrew both include all these insects as animals that have 4 legs.

 

[Pale^Rider**]

This is getting so old....when you're in court, do you continue to argue when a dead end has been reached?

(This will be my last post with you on this topic....or better yet, this totally different tangent that you've taken the original topic towards.....we can pick this topic up together on http://www.anlyticalthinking.net)

My original topic was in praise to the Almighty, that He, in fact did have full influence on the writing of every single solitary chapter of the Bible....and that's "MY BELIEF".

cb wrote:
The point isn't about whether the Greeks once believed something wrong. You are offering scientific facts supported by the Bible and saying that the prove the Bible is written by God since ancient man couldn't have known those facts. I am showing you that ancient Greek pagans were able to figure out these scientific facts without any help from God. If they could figure it out on their own, so could Jews.
The point is not whether they could or they couldn't without God, but that they didn't during the time when the particular chapters of the Bible (that i cited) were written. It's that simple.....they didn't...it's not that hard, nor were my intentions for starting this thread.....

cb wrote:
I don't know how to put it any simplier. People desrcibe both discs and spheres as circular. Ask anyone what shape a CD is. Or a race track. Or a frisbee. These are all discs, and these are all described as circles.
People in kindergarten describe them as you say....all as circles.....but I don't know how to spell this out for you any simpler....it goes back to translation of the original text. Geez, I even put them all infront of my 5 year old and he didn't describe them as "circles"....he knew what they were.....all of them.....but, my 2-year old, it was "circle, circle, plate, circle, etc...".

cb wrote:
It proves that ancient pagans can discover the same scientific truths as the writers of the Bible. So, your argument that the scientific truths in the Bible prove divine authorship is false.
It proves nothing of the sort....My citings prove that the brightest of those scientific minds had no clue during the time-frame at which each cited Bible Book was written. It's not that hard....if you just read and not try to anlalyze or infer to each and every comma or punctuation mark.

CB, you are dead wrong about your translation.....the full and correct translation is, " crawling creatures"....either way, it goes back to the translation....and any translation has errors. It makes no difference, I know and believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that my Almighty Creator and Heavenly Father wrote every single solitary word of that Awesome Book, and nothing can change that.

Peace to you cb....

btw- did you know that your little picture id is a "b" cubed....not a cubed bee (analytically speaking). :-?

 

[Pale^Rider**]

Job 38:19, "Where is THE WAY where light dwelleth?" How come Job didn't say where is THE PLACE where light dwelleth? Because light is always moving. How did Job know something in 1500 B.C. that science didn't find out until Einstein? How can the men who wrote that Amazing Book, with their limited scientific knowledge - BE SO FAR AHEAD OF SCIENCE?
I believe we all know the answer to this question.......