Print
The God of the Bible is No Delusion!
by Christadelphian.org
Steve sends us in this great little bit:
"Hi,
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Just thought I should send this in. I have attached a flyer that was posted
through my letter box. It is from an odd Christian group,
Christadelphians, that take the good book literally. Sad to see these groups
actually exist, good to see they are on the defensive.
I really hope it is not from my next door neighbour! Perhaps I need to move."
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Sunday, November 19, 2006 | PermalinkComments 451 - 500 of 1765 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers452. Comment #16541 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 8:45 am
"If you're right, then Israel, about to enter and take possession of the promised land, would quite sensibly expect later to be invaded, besieged, taken captive and dispersed among all peoples, because of their disobedience to Yahweh. Please, can you explain how that's in any way "obvious"?"given the religious tentions at the time and the way in which israel was (andstill is) constantly under threat then yes it was pretty obvious
i noticeyou have once again conviniantly ignored by comments on all the other religions fullfilled propheices and how you can completly dismiss them as myth but still belive in your god
all religions have prophecies that have been fullfilled, even Zeus and Thor, so why then do you not belive in them?
what is the difference between everyother god, past and present, and your own?
Other Comments by down_under
453. Comment #16542 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 8:47 am
You have also ignored my previous comment on jules verne.how he more accuratly, less criptivly and more recently than the bible predicted the future.
Why do you not worship him and have his complete works as your bible?
Other Comments by down_under
454. Comment #16544 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 9:27 am
Hi Mark,Was actually thinking about greek when I made the aramaic comment (was thinking about Antiochus IV at the time) DOH!
However, the word to understand "shama" is defined thus: a primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.; causatively, to tell, etc.). That is not at variance with the fact that daniel still had to learn the language of babylon. Although I speak the same language as the, I dont understand Dundonians, so the same word could be used here. Ever Read any Robert Burns, and how much sense does it make to you?
I still dont buy the eagle though. It just is not specific ennough. I still go with babylon
Other Comments by BillySands
455. Comment #16545 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 9:28 am
down_under:I have not ignored your comments, please see below.
3> ALL the other religions have prophecies that have appeared to come true like those in the bible
you belive the bible because of its fulfilled prophecies, so why then dont you belive in
Allah?
the Hindu gods?
Zeus?
Thor?
Ra?
Evil galactic lord xenu?
Joseph Smith?
OK, if you're correct, you will be able to present evidence for your view, as I did for mine. Look at my post 576 (page 12) of this thread. There I gave two examples of fulfilled Bible prophecy. I included the detailed Bible prophetic texts concerned. I pointed out how they directly describe specific geopolitical events that undeniably occurred much later than the texts were written. Since you are so clear that all other religions have equivalent prophecies, please do the equivalent thing (one example will suffice) for a comparable prophecy in one or more of: the Koran, any sacred text of the Hindus, any provably ancient text associated with the worship of Zeus or Thor or Ra. From what you say, it ought to be straightforward to do.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
456. Comment #16549 by gimlibengloin on January 7, 2007 at 9:36 am
Billy Sands (599)"Is it something embarrasing like seymour butts?"
Ben Dover, actually ha, ha.
Actually, I do read your posts and I appreciate them. In fact in one sense I'm grateful for the criticisms you neo-atheists are making because it at the least helps theists to think about these things.
And yes I am serious.
However, as I said when R.D net changed its posting rules I did consider not coming on again partly because I've got plenty of other things to worry about. Nevertheless, I will look at them.
Cheers
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
457. Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:05 am
Gee ... are you guys still at this. The biblical prophecies you claim are accepted only by a small select group of fringe christian cults. They are less than worthless. Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
458. Comment #16554 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:13 am
Mark:You seem pretty sure of yourself that only the bible hasfulfilled prohphecies, so i will gladley provide you evidence, maybe you will then answer me what is the difference between your god and theirs? Why is your real and theirs not?
Greek prophecies:
The best known example from Greek legend is that of Oedipus. Warned that his child would one day kill him, Laius abandoned his newborn son Oedipus to die, but Oedipus was found and raised by others, and thus in ignorance of his true origins. When he grew up, Oedipus was warned that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Believing his foster parents were his real parents, he left his home and travelled Greece, eventually reaching the city where his biological parents lived. There, he got into a fight with a stranger, his father, and killed him, and married his widow, Oedipus's mother.
Hindu Propecies: This link http://bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled/hindusa.htm lists literally dozens of ancient hindu prophecies fullfilled in recent times
Islamic Prophecies:
"Corruption has spread on land and sea because of what men's hands have wrought" (30:42) (pollution)
And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)
(establishment of israel)
"They will alter Allah's creation." (4:120)(gentic enginering)
"And when the wild beasts are gathered together." (81:6) (zoos....in the days this was written noone could imagine capturing, taming and keeping wild animals, yet it was predicted in the Koran)
"And by the heaven full of tracks" (51:8) (airplanes?)
"It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of sex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers." (Ibn-e-Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan)* (Aids)
Other Comments by down_under
459. Comment #16556 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:17 am
This link http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml provides all the fullfilld prophecies of the mormon prophet Joseph SmithI am suprised you belived the bible to be the only religous artifact to have accurate prophecies, all relgions have them i thought most people knew this (hence why i didnt bother to provide evidence 1st time round)
However, now you know, so what makes christianity different (and therefore correct) to any other religion?
And your comments on Jules Verne? and Nostradaumus?
Other Comments by down_under
460. Comment #16557 by BillySands on January 7, 2007 at 10:19 am
Mark, Thought you may be interested in this:"Babylon is scripturally described as the great eagle with a head of gold. Babylon is the great eagle that comes unto Lebanon, with another great eagle shooting forth her branches in Ezekiel 17. The king of Babylon comes to Jerusalem and takes the king and the princes and leads them with him to Babylon. "Behold you among the heathen and regard and wonder marvelously: for I will work a work in your days, which you will not believe, though it will be told you. For lo, I raise up the Chaldeans, that bitter and hasty nation which shall march through the breadth of the land, to possess... they are terrible and dreadful... horses swifter than leopards... fly as the eagle... come all for violence: their face shall sup up as the east wind... scoff at kings. Then shall his mind change, and he shall pass over, and offend, imputing this his power unto his god."
Other Comments by BillySands
461. Comment #16558 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:20 am
Briancoughlanworldcitizen:"610. Comment #16553 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:05 am
Gee ... are you guys still at this. The biblical prophecies you claim are accepted only by a small select group of fringe christian cults. They are less than worthless."
This is exactly what myself and billy are attempting to prove to Mark, sadley he seems incapable of realsing that not only are they far from evidence of gods existance but christianty in not unique in fulfilled prophecies
Other Comments by down_under
462. Comment #16560 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:28 am
More islamic prophecies"Their skins will bear witness against them as to what they have been doing" (41:21)
The finger prints system at borders, criminal investigation cells and immigration centres prove the fulfillment of this Quranic prophecy.
"And when the mountains are made to move." (81:4)
Centuries before the invention of dynamite, the holy Quran prophesied the blowing up and moving of the mountains.
"And when the rivers are made to flow into each other." (81:7)
"He has made the two bodies of water flow. They will one day meet. Between them there is a barrier; they cannot encroach one upon the other." (55:20,21)
"And He it is Who shall merge the two seas together. This palatable and sweet, that saltish and bitter. And between them He has (presently) placed a barrier and a massive partition." (25:54)
These prophecies could easily refer to the suez and panama canels
So are you now going to convert to islam? afterall you only belive the bible becase of its fulfilled prophecies? so surly you must also belive the Koran now?
Or perhaps you see the folly of beliving ancient prophecies?
Other Comments by down_under
463. Comment #16561 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:39 am
Also, i will provide a list of bible prophecies that HAVE NOT come trueIsaiah 19:5-7
And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.
Isaiah also spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies:
Isaiah 7:1-7
In the days of Ahaz,...king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it...And the Lord said to Isaiah "Go forth to meet Ahaz...and say to him, 'Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint...at the fierce anger of Rezin...and the son of Remaliah. Because Syria...and the son of Remaliah has devised evil against you saying "Let us go up against Judah and terrify it and let us conquer it for ourselves..." thus says the Lord God: "It shall not stand and it shall not come to pass..."
Yet according to II Chronicles, Syria and Pekah did conquer Judah!
II Chronicles 28:1, 5-6
Ahaz was 20 years old when he began his reign...[T]he Lord God gave him into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people...He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel who defeated him with great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew a hundred and twenty thousand in Judah in one day...
You may argue "cant get them all right" but if your all seeing all knowing God can see the future then surley ALL his predictions would be correct, the fact that there are some incorrect propheces in the bible, PROOVE that it was written by man and not god.
or maybe this is another "test of faith" ;-) the theist test of faith argument always makes me chuckle hehe
Other Comments by down_under
464. Comment #16565 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 7, 2007 at 10:47 am
This is exactly what myself and billy are attempting to prove to Mark, sadley he seems incapable of realsing that not only are they far from evidence of gods existance but christianty in not unique in fulfilled prophecies 615. Comment #16560 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 10:28 am
Hey, I admire your relentlessness:-) This koranic prophecies are pretty good though ... I wonder. Oh my goodness!!!! I think you people have converted me to Islam.
Alakbar!!!
Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen
465. Comment #16568 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 11:37 am
Brian:"Hey, I admire your relentlessness:-)"
hehe thanks,iv found i have to be relentness (and repeat myself alot) because its the only way theists eventually (attempt) to answer the difficult questions,too often they ignore what they cant answer or what seems to suggest their religion is wrong and act like you didnt even say anything
i just got fed up of of it, if they cant answer simple questions then they must realise how fragile their beliefs are, if you scroll up you will notice ther are still alot of simple short straightforward questions they have yet to comment on.....me thinks il have to repeat myself a few more times ;-)
Other Comments by down_under
466. Comment #16570 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 11:50 am
Mark:Sorry, 1 more post,i keep forgetting to put things in, i do apologise i post alot but lets face it theres alot of info out there that disprooves the bible
anyway heres what i forgotto include, you were quick to tell me that the drought prediction was easy because its happening but then failed to comment on this prediction
Perhaps my drought prediction was a bad example, but how about this
"I predict a great city will flood withing 100 years"
thats not happening right now, but its obvious it will because of global warming
however had this prediction been made 5 years ago, it would still be predicting global warming, but you could argue i predicted the New Orleans disaster or the Boxing day tsunami!
Other Comments by down_under
467. Comment #16571 by gimlibengloin on January 7, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Billy Sands"Don't quote others, provide evidence" (599)
Not sure about the validity of that request as quoting an evolutionary paleontologist on the state of the fossil record is surely providing evidence, isn't it?
The quote was from MacroEvolution (1979). Oh, and its my own copy since I know how suspicious you are about quoting creationist quoting evolutionists.
By the way I know this is none of my business because you were addressing Theo but even if biochemists did succeed in creating life wouldn't this only confirm the necessity for ID?
Other Comments by gimlibengloin
468. Comment #16572 by Cholmonedeley on January 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Pardon me for interloping, I know I haven't been a part of the discussion, but I've read the prophecies Mark Taunton cites and I'm not convinced.For one thing, the prophecies you cite supposedly in support of example A, Israel's treatment by Rome, are extremely unconvincing. Nowhere do we find any specific mentions of the Romans or any other details giving the identity of the people supposedly punishing Israel at the behest of God. "Mighty men" from "an ancient nation" could easily mean any number of different groups, say, the Spartans for instance. If you have to "interperet" a prophecy at all, it ain't a prophecy. All of these prophecies really seem to be stern warnings against spiritual infidelity: a land-based culture that promotes marrying within the "tribe," it's easy to see why someone might try to frighten them by saying that what they have been raised to value will be upset by irreligiosity.
Israel's treatment by Rome is hardly against "all human expectations," either. Rome wanted to dominate the world: the Jews wanted political independence. Therefore the Jews were broken up by Rome to weaken them. This kind of behavior on the part of empires is not uncommon throughout human history: the Inca empire did it, for one, and it had happened to the Jews previous to the Romans, so it wasn't like they couldn't expect it. They may have even thought that their punishment would happen at the hands of the Babylonians, back when that prophecy occurred.
What you need to do is demonstrate the correlation between whatever infidelity these prophecies refer to and the assaults on the Jews by various rival states, not just that the prophecies' dire predictions came true (given the brutality of the ancient world, it's improbable that such things wouldn't come true). I think you would probably find this very difficult. Therefore these prophecies were more likely warnings against irreligiosity (note the Bible's command to raze any village with even a single unbeliever in it) than an accurate prediction.
As far as example B goes, give me a break! The Jews re-forming Israel is by no means "beyond all human expectations." Their religion demands that they hold certain lands holy: therefore, like computer programs, they gravitate towards that land. It's like saying that Evangelical Christians proselytizing, 10th century Muslims conquering new lands for the "fold of Islam," or Tibetan Buddhists not violently resisting the aggressions of foreign nations is an unexpected event. No, it isn't: it's their programming! It's like inventing a religion based on space travel, making a prediction about reaching another planet, and then looking back at that prediction and thinking it means something! Any of the events "prophesied" in the Bible could be reasonably expected with a general knowledge of Judaism and a knowledge of the behavior of nation-states, all without referring to any of the actual prophecies.
And as others have pointed out, other religions have their prophecies, as well, many of which have come just as true as any in the Bible. There has long been a Tibetan Buddhist prophecy, for instance, that the 14th Dalai Lama would not live in Tibet. Guess what? The current Lama is the 14th, and he doesn't live in Tibet. Strengthening the probability that this was actually an accurate prophecy, this happened not because of internal affairs in Tibet but because China forced him out--and it's not like China would want to validate his status as a "divine being," would they?
You have three logical options, in my opinion. Either accept Tibetan Buddhism, because it made a clear and accurate prediction, whereas the Bible makes none; accept that all religions are valid and that there are actually many gods, because every religion has had many of its own "predictions" fulfilled; and your own god is simply an egotistical tyrant; or reject all religions and say that there is something to the act of prophecy that simply doesn't have anything to do with whether a religion is correct or incorrect.
Other Comments by Cholmonedeley
469. Comment #16574 by J.C. Samuelson on January 7, 2007 at 12:25 pm
@ Theo # 593 / 16246 on 1/5/07Sorry it took so long to reply. Weekends can be demanding.
"If by some stretch of the imagination the bible is proven false, then it does not mean that God does not exist, it means he did not write it. Then I would hold the Deist position."
Well, I wasn't arguing against God's existence. All I asked was whether you were willing to entertain the idea that biblical writers could have been exercising creative license. This is a simple exercise in critical thinking. The theist's often uncritical acceptance of scripture while making rigid demands for evidence/proof in other areas seems inconsistent. Basically, this is part of the theist tactic of shifting the burden of proof.
Your statement here is indicative of that same kind of thinking, because you seem to accept the Bible uncritically, and would likely demand evidence that it is not what it purports to be. Confident that it never will be "disproven" (since proving a negative - or discrediting alleged miracles of antiquity - is impossible), you have shifted the burden of proof in your mind and feel safe making the statement that you would cease to accept its divine authorship if your conditions were met. Or, at least that's what it looks like from here, and it fits previous experiences with theists.
Frankly, I don't see that uncritical acceptance of the Bible and believing in a generic god-concept are connected even remotely. So you see, it's not about proving or disproving God; it's about applying the same standard to biblical passages & ideas that you do to say, evolution or abiogenesis. That is, ask if alternatives are possible, then look at the arguments for each.
"Its not that I wont answer a question concerning it, its just that when answering, I know that I am performing an exercise in futility."
The answers to those questions were really meant more for you than me. It doesn't really matter what I think about the Bible, because I am not you. I simply find it frustrating because I used to believe as you do; that the Bible was the divinely inspired Word of God, and that skeptics must prove to me it isn't. In other words, I had abdicated my responsibility to think critically, at least where scripture was concerned. I submit that healthy skepticism and critical thinking are not "exercises in futility."
"When one knows what the future would bring, it does not mean that he causes it to happen."
No, of course not. I did not say that God forced Adam & Eve to eat the fruit. What I was intimating was that God set the conditions that facilitated the events he knew would occur, which you agreed to in the sentence that followed. But to break this down...
"God knew the end result of the situation and thus made the relevant provisions before hand."
Precisely. God knew the outcome. Thus, the conditions were set in such a way that it was impossible for Adam & Eve not to follow his plan.
"Whether Adam and Eve partook of the fruit or not, God would have known the result of free choice anyway."
However, God knew which choice they would make. There could be no question that they would choose to eat. If we accept omniscience as knowing all possibilities while allowing free will (as you suggest), then God must be a "hands off" God. Any plan under this model must allow for change, because free will means the possibility of divergence from that plan. Manipulation on God's part - to include impregnating Mary, killing all the first born of Egypt, or alternately permitting and/or restricting Satan's activities in the world, and many others - constitutes the destruction of choice.
Simply put, if we believe that God's actions in the Bible actually occurred, and that his omniscience is perfect, there was never any possibility that Adam & Eve could make a different choice even though God did not actually force anything. Otherwise, God's plan of salvation through Jesus - which he already knew would be necessary according to that plan - would not have been necessary.
Imagine if Adam & Eve had not eaten the fruit. What place for Jesus in a sinless world?
One might also argue that God ultimately did cause these things to happen, because he knew prior to creating Adam & Eve what choice they would make. All of the players, all of the props, and yes, even the script were of his making.
That is, of course, if we accept the biblical story (which I no longer do).
"I have observed with dismay that you, with amazing precision, carefully ignored the latter part of my statement..."
My apologies. I admit that on a second reading you did not say what I thought you were saying. I was hasty, and this is only the first time in the latter post. Hindsight is always 20/20, as they say.
"I guess you can do a better job, any suggestions...Can you show me where I have "betrayed a skewed understanding" of the theories?"
These might be answered best by treating them as combined.
First, more apologies for my hasty reading of your post. The appearance of "steady-state theory" put me in a certain mode of thought, and the cosmological theory was the first to come to mind. However, I think part of the reason that occurred to me first is that it looks like the two theories (cosmological & biological) were conflated in your statement about it. Please check your biology textbook to see if it implies something similar to the cosmological theory. That is, does it address the theory from the notion that "life always existed?"
All of the materials I've ever read concerning steady states in biology have more to do with cells achieving a steady state as opposed to equilibrium, rather than having always existed. Alternatively, the term might be attached to an equation relating to the rate of mutation. I have read that some proponents of panspermia do champion the notion of life having always existed, but I'm not sure if this would be properly categorized as a steady state theory of biology or part of cosmic panspermia.
As for the latter, it doesn't necessarily have to do with life existing in other parts of the universe being delivered here already formed. To be sure, that's one idea. However, it can also apply to the Earth forming absent some of the elements necessary, with those elements arriving or being caused later due to one or more of the impacts suffered during Earth's early history. Of course, this still leaves the problem of the elements combining, so it doesn't offer a direct solution.
With regard to spontaneous generation, I didn't do a good job of communicating my thoughts. Though scientists have not been able to use scratch materials to create an environment that would spontaneously generate a self-replicating cell, some interesting advancements have been made that suggest that such a thing still might be possible.
You may be familiar with the Miller-Urey experiment in which a "prebiotic soup" using elements agreed upon as necessary for life did result not only in the spontaneous generation of organic material, but also resulted in the spontaneous bonding of molecules to form some of the amino acids necessary for the forming of proteins. Criticism of their experiment included the tremendous amount of energy needed for that to happen (they had used electricity to simulate the lightning storms presumed to have been frequent in early Earth history, but these wouldn't have supplied a continuous stream of energy like that in the experiment), and recent developments that suppose some of the necessary molecules did not exist in the early Earth atmosphere. However, this criticism doesn't refute spontaneous generation. What it criticizes is the amounts of spontaneously generated organic compounds that might have been created. The point is that though the experiment might have had flaws, it did show that given the right conditions the precursors for more complex organic development was possible, and it is reasonable to suppose that if these precursors did form (and given deep-time, the "rapid" part of the bonding that occurred in the experiment need not apply) that these molecules could then combine in a similarly spontaneous way, resulting in the greater complex constructs of cells and then of course, living bacteria, etc., etc..
In simple terms, spontaneous generation hasn't been wholly taken out of the lab just yet.
Other ideas include the clay crystal theory, and various hybrid theories. I'm loathe to quote purely Internet authority, but for simplicity's sake (I don't exactly have endless amounts of time to lay it all out here) and because it is readable and can be used as a jumping off point for further reading, here's the Wikipedia article on the Origins of Life. The terms there can then be searched, either online or off to find more reliable and complete information. Abiogenesis is relatively young, and no one has completely closed the book on any of the possibilities just yet. That's just the way science works until a workable hypothesis evolves into a theory. Even then the tests never really cease.
My thought process was that you had either been misinformed on the full range of possibilities and that you were being arbitrary in your dismissal of those you already knew about. Again, personal incredulity does not prevent something from being true, even if we fail to imagine it.
Yes, that includes my estimation of God. Ergo, I don't try to prove its non-existence.
"And to think that this was a reply to show BillySands that the bible was not the source of my belief!"
Perhaps not, and I admit I may have misread you. Maybe part of my confusion may have to do with your continued reference to the Bible. Since you've also said that in the absence of the Bible you would hold the deist position, and that reason led you to your belief, I'm guessing that your position is that the world is too wonderful & complex to have arisen through natural means, so God must be responsible. Would that be accurate? If so, it would be nice to know if you have a specific idea of how special creation occurred, and what your source of information is.
"Again I beg, what are the alternative theories?"
See above.
"You ignored my question in comment 575," if life did NOT originate by spontaneous generation NOR special creation, DOES LOGIC FACILITATE ANOTHER EXPLANATION?"
Yes. See above.
Just to be thorough, let's be clear that logic alone does not determine which hypothesis best facilitates an explanation. Logic can be supported or undermined by evidence. For an unrelated example, quantum theory is decidedly counter-intuitive and seemingly illogical, yet it fits the evidence.
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
470. Comment #16576 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Down_under: (611)Sorry, I can't answer it all now, but let me as a first step deal with…
Islamic Prophecies:
"Corruption has spread on land and sea because of what men's hands have wrought" (30:42) (pollution)
In context, that doesn't appear to be prophetic, but instead descriptive of an existing state of things…?
"And after him We said to the Children of Israel, 'Dwell Ye in the promised land; and when the time of the promise of the Latter Days come, We shall bring you together out of various people." (17:105)
(establishment of israel)
The Koran draws many details from the Bible: not hard to do, since it was written over 500 years after the last part of the Bible was. It modifies some, often drastically, for example the explicit contradiction of it that I pointed out to you earlier, and leaves others more or less unchanged – this quote provides an example of the latter. For the Koran to quote from Bible prophecies, and for those to subsequently be fulfilled – as you rightly observe, about the establishment of Israel – shows as before that Biblical prophecies are indeed accurate!
By the way, the translation of the Koran that I have (by N. J. Dawood, Penguin classics, 2003 edition) doesn't have the last phrase "out of various people" that you quote. Which translation are you using?
"They will alter Allah's creation." (4:120)(gentic enginering)
In context this is connected with "slitting the ears of cattle". Is that something that is done in genetic engineering? – If so, I was not aware of it!
"And when the wild beasts are gathered together." (81:6) (zoos....in the days this was written noone could imagine capturing, taming and keeping wild animals, yet it was predicted in the Koran)
I don't think so!
In context, the Koran says this:
When the sun ceases to shine; when the stars fall and the mountains are blown away; when camels big with young are left untended, and the wild beasts are brought together; when the seas are set alight and men's souls are reunited; when the infant girl, buried alive, is asked for what crime she was slain; when the records of men's deeds are laid open, and heaven is stripped bare; when Hell burns fiercely and Paradise is brought near: then each soul shall learn what it has done.
The words in context clearly have no connection with the development of zoos! None of the surrounding text associated with the part you quote relates to human activities at all; rather, the context speaks of climactic events, including several allusions back to the Biblical book of Revelation and its description of the future day of Judgement. Your alleged "prophecy" in respect of zoos cannot in any sense be compared to e.g. Ezekiel 36:1-24 that I quoted. That Bibical prophecy is a long, detailed description of events, then far in the future, but now clearly fulfilled in those exact details, and which, in context means exactly what it says.
"And by the heaven full of tracks" (51:8) (airplanes?)
I note you put a question mark – rightly so. This speculative interpretation of tiny details, extracted without regard to context, is directly in contrast with the nature of Biblical prophecy and its fulfillment (see my comment 404 ). In its context in the Koran, this textual element you cite is not itself even claimed as prophetic. Just beforehand (51:1) the text says "by the dust-scattering winds and the heavily laden clouds, … ", i.e. it is taking then-known phenomena of the natural world and using their directly perceivable reality as the basis for certainty concerning something that Allah is promising. Again, such usage draws on pre-existing Biblical prototype with regard to Yahweh and his promises (e.g. Psalm 103:11-12, Jeremiah 31:35-37). And as I say, there is in any case no prophetic aspect to "by the heaven full of tracks" itself, rather the opposite (in the Dawood translation it reads "by the heaven with its starry highways").
"It never happens that permissiveness overwhelms a people to the extent that they display their acts of sex shamelessly and they are not uniquely punished by God. Among them, invariably, pestilence is made to spread and such other diseases, the like of which have never been witnessed by their forefathers." (Ibn-e-Majah, Kitab-ul-Fitan)* (Aids)
Again I suggest this is derivative from the Bible, though it is not an accurate reflection of it. There are several possible Biblical allusions here: one obvious one is to the Canaanite peoples in the era of the Exodus, with their many forms of sexual immorality that Yahweh condemns (Leviticus 18, particularly verse 24-28), and which underlie his command to the Israelites to destroy them.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
471. Comment #16583 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Mark:by disecting the prophcies you missed the point
my point was all religions have prophecies that seem to be true yet once disected you realise they can apply to any nubmer of things or be wrong all together, christianities included as Billy has stated many times (read Cholmondeleys respone to your prophecies)
It is also very comical that when you see a prediction that could be taken accuratley you say "wah wah they stole it from us! we had it first! copycats!" haha proove to me that the writers of the Koran "copied the bibles answers" if you will
"I note you put a question mark – rightly so. This speculative interpretation of tiny details, extracted without regard to context" - yup! just like the bible!
Mark if you took the time and opened your mind enough to disect your bible prophecies as much as you have the koran (which you cant due to your brainwashed mind) you would see the similatites in how the prophecies are written in both texts!
you also ignored a few more Koran prophecies and all the other religious prophecies
I didnt want to say the prophecies in the Koran were correct, just that they could be interpreted to be correct by brainwashed muslims, the same as the bible with brainwashed christians
by showing the foolishness of the koran prophecies and yet not do the same to bible prophecies has......once again prooved my point and not your own........bravo
Other Comments by down_under
472. Comment #16584 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 1:39 pm
As i said once before, theists are like Children not willing to let go of their belief in santa even after catching their parents putting the presents under the tree.their minds seem to be void of logic
have youeven realised mark that just because you belive the prophecis to be true you then accept the rest of the entire book? no matter how ridiculous some of the stuff is! and some prophecies are wrong anyway!! how can an all knowing being be wrong?
Other Comments by down_under
473. Comment #16585 by fonex_86 on January 7, 2007 at 1:45 pm
A friend of mine once was so depressed she thought of committing suicide. When I asked how she managed to shake herself out of it, she replied: "well, I don't want to go to hell." -- note that this is coming from the mouth of a 21-year-old. down_under, a faith in santa is nothing compared to a faith in infinite punishment for finite crimes... talk about a bloodlust... sheesh...Other Comments by fonex_86
474. Comment #16588 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Mark do this for morehonestly and un-bias (if you are even capable of doin that) but your religion and the bible under the same scrutiny you put on other religions
seek the inacuracies and the failed prophecies and the ridiculous stories and events that have been proven not to have happened, seek the inconsistancies
If you do this mark you will realise your religion is no different to any other and (like them) incorrect.....if you can (honestly) do this and still belive then im afraid you are to brainwashed by a christian society and beyond help
Other Comments by down_under
475. Comment #16589 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 1:52 pm
fonex_86"a faith in santa is nothing compared to a faith in infinite punishment for finite crimes"
they are exactly the same because they are both false
and are you telling me that your all loving God, would allow your friend to live such a horrible life that she wants it to end
then once she has ended it, send her to hell??
and then when you die and go to heaven, are you telling me you could enjoy heaven knowing your friend was suffering forever in hell??
God is suppost to love us more than our parents do, yet my mother would never send me to eternal punisment simply for not beliving she existed, even if i pushed my mother down the stairs, told her i hated her and spat in her face (ouch painful thought ofcourse i could never do that!) she woud still love me and not wish eternal suffering on me
and as for blood lust.....have you read the bible!!! its the most horrific blood thirsty book iv ever read!! your god is one evil bastard!! he even created hell!! he even purposly tests your faith to try and trick you into ending up there!!
sheesh!!
im also guessing that you and your friend are so fickle that you need the wish of an eternal reward and the fear of eternal punishment just to behave morally yes?
Other Comments by down_under
476. Comment #16590 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Happy new year to you all.Sorry to go back to a previous thread within this thread, but I didn't get around to giving Steve and Torbjorn a proper response. Not sure if you are still out there guys, but I don't mind if any others would like to respond to these points.
Steve and Torbjorn, going back to your comments (post 381 and others) relating to your belief that there has been plenty of time for evolution in the neo-Darwinist (NDT) mould to occur. You are convinced by the examples you have provided (bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics etc) that there have been many, many, many, beneficial, random micro-mutations. Not only that, but you contend that these beneficial micro-mutations have survived to influence the phenotype, been selected by the "blind watchmaker" (natural selection), taken over populations and resulted in bacteria turning into human beings over the 4.6 billion years of Earth's history.
There are a number of key issues with this world-view which result in very significant, and probably ultimately terminal, problems for the NDT.
Bacterial resistance to streptomycin or methicillin is undoubtedly as a result of a micro-mutation that leads to a change in the phenotype (structure and /or function of the organism). Just exactly what this micro-mutation is would take up a lot of space to discuss, but the bottom line is that this is a mutation that results in a loss of information from the genotype. The question must then be asked, does this example provide evidence of a micro-mutation that could account for the type of change required to bring about the macro-evolution (bacterium to human) required to validate the NDT? I would suggest it doesn't. The NDT requires evidence that points to random micro-mutations adding information to the genotype not taking it away.
The main proponents of the NDT understand well that large changes have to be built from small ones to make their theory work. There is a better chance of getting a small change than a great big one in single step. But really the relative chance is not the important issue. The main point is this: is the probability of small changes building up large enough to make the theory work? If not the theory is invalid.
Common sense says that the array, complexity and interdependence of life on our planet could not have arisen as the result of chance processes. People like RD use clever arguments to show why NDT should work and that common sense is wrong. They say that although the variation occurs randomly the selection process gives it direction and makes it appear to be the result of purposeful design. Can random micro-mutations give the blind watchmaker enough of the right genes to make the NDT work?
The arguments presented to support the NDT come into three categories 1. verbal 2.mathematical and 3.experimental evidence.
Verbal arguments should always be viewed with scepticism; I've observed debates taking place where the person who is the best debater, and best at PR wins and not the person with the strongest case. The high profile supporters of the NDT are very good at making their assumptions (based on various facts) of how this or that might have happened, sound like facts.
Steve has alluded to some of the mathematical evidence developed by Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and others. Fisher and Wright conducted their studies in the 1930's and 40's and their objective was to show that Mendel's results didn't cause any problems to the NDT. They were also mainly occupied by issues relating to the cross breeding of crops and cattle (not together!). A theory that is based on random events absolutely has to be checked against the probabilities of those events – this is surely one of the first (if not the first) check that should be made. Fisher and co did not make this check. The reason for this is that when the NDT synthesis was pulled together by Huxley, Gaylord Simpson and co , the molecular basis of the required mutations was unknown because DNA was not discovered until the 1950's. The architects of the NDT did not think there was a problem with the probability of the mutations, but there is. The work of Fisher and co are in essence assumptions in a theorem, not facts observed in nature.
The experimental evidence should be the most powerful of all in support of the theory. Unfortunately there is no direct evidence of large-scale evolution. "Ah, but the fossil evidence…" I hear you cry! But what the fossils prove is that in the past there have been changes in living organisms. They don't tell us how that change took place, they don't even tell us that the later forms of organism descended from the earlier. To say that they did descend would be an assumption based on a theory (this is where the verbal arguments usually come in again). The only way you can use the fossils as proof is to beg the question and assume the theory to be correct.
Most modern day supporters of the NDT look to genetic recombination as the main source of variability, but ultimately the source has to be mutation if the theory is to hold. This is why I quoted the point mutation rate in an earlier post, a rate which after the cell's "proof reading" process is around one mutation per billion – to one per hundred billion (Darnell et al 1986 – Molecular Cell Biology. NY. Scientific American Books). Only mutation can give the NDT the flexibility it needs to change the genome, to add new information, with resulting changes to structure and function in the organism. Recombination can't do much more than bring out the variability that is already there in the genome.
So what is the probability of getting enough useful mutations for natural selection to turn a bacterium into a human being? Well this post is long enough already so I won't attempt to put the maths in now but will come back to it in another post. For the time being suffice it to say that the rarity of copying errors is a terminal problem for the NDT. There has quite simply not been enough time in the Earths history for evolution by random mutation and natural selection.
Any theory that seeks to explain how all living organisms evolved from a single cell has to explain how all that information got into the genome in the time available – the NDT falls a long, long, long, long way short!
That's enough for now.
Other Comments by shauntheboy
477. Comment #16592 by fonex_86 on January 7, 2007 at 2:05 pm
um, down_under, I'm actually on your side... :D sorry if I'm not exactly clear. What I meant to point out is how ridiculously childish a devoutly religious mind can be, believing in such an abominable place -- not to mention believing in the creator of said place.Not to mention a complete disregard of life -- she didn't kill herself merely because of fear of hell, not because she realizes how precious her own life is.
Other Comments by fonex_86
478. Comment #16593 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 2:11 pm
D_UI agree with the comments you and Billy make about the man-god thing. There is an excellent book written by a chap called Hislop (or it might be Hyslop, can't remember) called "Two Babylons". It very clearly shows that the key Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter predate Christianity by millenia. The association of Christmas with Saturnalia and pagan religion is undeniable. That Easter is clearly an ancient fertility festival is also quite clear, even the name gives the game away (Ishtar-Easter!).,
I don't see Christmas or Easter or Saints days or much of the other paraphernalia associated with the organised Christian system, anywhere in the pages of the Bible. The "Two Babylons" book also traces the origin of such doctrines as the trinity (making Jesus literally God and denying the essence of his humanity) and immortal soulism back to the pagan religions of Egypt, Babylon, Greece and others, long before the Christian era.
All you prove with your points is how far removed from the Gospel message of the Bible modern Christianity has become. Your argument does nothing to nullify the teaching of Scripture.
Other Comments by shauntheboy
479. Comment #16594 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Maybe you guys should get a concordance out and look up the word "hell" in a Bible and see what you find. I think that you will find that the idea of eternal burning fires of some subterranian vault stoked by an evil monster is simply not there. Hell is a grave mistake.This idea also pre-dates Christianity and has subsequently been incorporated into Christian dogma. Not so popular now as it used to be mind!
Are there any Bible believers on this thread who actually believe the Bible teaches what these chaps are discussing? There might be I suppose - speak up now if you are out there!
Other Comments by shauntheboy
480. Comment #16598 by fonex_86 on January 7, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Not so popular? I was raised a christian, so I know what christians believe. At least 80% of all the christians I know literally believe in the hell you spoke of. I wasn't talking about this kind of hell, my reference to the "flames" of hell was merely a poetic one. My point is that infinite punishment for a finite crime is ridiculous.But then again, the same guy who wants to do this also likes to wipe dung on people's faces (Malachi 2:3).
Other Comments by fonex_86
481. Comment #16599 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 2:28 pm
down_under:you also ignored a few more Koran prophecies and all the other religious prophecies
Please can you give me a break? I introduced my comment (623) by saying I could only deal with the "Islamic prophecies" you presented in (611) at that time. My comment took a little time to produce - I had to look up the Koran passages you cited, consider their significance, and compose the reply. And I do have do fit a few other things into my life besides producing submissions to this website!
There is a fundamental difference in character between those "Islamic prophecies" you offered, and the Biblical ones I put forward. Saying that Sura 81:6 is as plausible as a prediction of zoos as Ezekiel 36:1-24 is of the return of the Jews to Israel to form a viable nation there, is utterly unjustifiable. But I leave it to others to check the difference out for themselves.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
482. Comment #16601 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 2:33 pm
fonex_86Sorry for my mistake, i misinterpreted what you said, its easily done.....which is ironicaly what we have been arguing about, prooved my own argument how great is that!! haha
plus you do have a point about how she wanted to live due to fear of hell rather than love of life, i think atheists see human life as far more precious because we see it as the only one, and that we got where we are by our own merit not by some divine being who looks at us like we're children and demands worship
also, if we make a mistake we blame ourselves and learn from it, we dont blame satan
if we wrong someone we seek their forgivness and try to ammend things, rather than just seek forgivness from god and leave it at that
we (rightly) are proud of our accomplishment, because they are ours, not gods
I recently saw an article in the paper about a 5 year old girl who whilst sleep walking walked out her window fell 3 floors and landed on something soft (cant remember what) and rather than dying she just fractured her arm
her parents said "the angels must of been watching over her" im thinking "so the angels allowed her to walk out the window in the 1st place ad allowed her arm to break, they couldnt have been watching very well!!
if they had the ability to put something soft in the way why didnt they just simply lock the window?
the theist mind process never seases to amaze me
Other Comments by down_under
483. Comment #16602 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Billy: (607)Hi Mark,
Was actually thinking about greek when I made the aramaic comment (was thinking about Antiochus IV at the time) DOH!
Retraction accepted. I make plenty of mistakes myself – as my family like to tell me!
However, the word to understand "shama" is defined thus: a primitive root; to hear intelligently (often with implication of attention, obedience, etc.; causatively, to tell, etc.). That is not at variance with the fact that daniel still had to learn the language of babylon
…
I still dont buy the eagle though. It just is not specific ennough. I still go with Babylon
You still don't seem to have acknowledged that, irrespective of the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, Isaiah 36:11 prevents application of Deut 28:49 to Aramaic-speaking invaders, even city-besieging ones: "we understand it" explicitly contradicts "you will not understand". Deuteronomy 28:49-57, which is all one description of a specific invader, therefore cannot apply to Babylon.
Although I speak the same language as the, I dont understand Dundonians, so the same word could be used here. Ever Read any Robert Burns, and how much sense does it make to you?
Actually I did read a little Burns at school. It was tough going in places, but the words I did recognise, with a bit of mental effort, helped put some shape around those I didn't, and so I could make out at least the general gist of it. I also find it becomes a bit clearer when well read by a Scot who knows what it all means, and so can put the emphasis in the right places. By the way, the few Dundonians I know are all quite intelligible – one of my friends, who attended the talk this thread was triggered from back in November, comes from that fair city…
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
484. Comment #16603 by J.C. Samuelson on January 7, 2007 at 2:39 pm
@ shauntheboy # 632 / 16594Minor point:
According to the Strongest Strong's Exhaustive Concordance the word "Hell," contextualized from the Greek geena and hades and the Hebrew sheol appears 54 times. As a place of torment, it appears in Mt. 5:22, 29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Lk. 12:5; and Jas. 3:6. As a place of captivity for fallen angels, 2 Pe. 2:4.
Strong's numbers: #7585, #1067, #86, and #5020.
The concept may have become less popular, but is still believed by a rather large percentage of Christians, at least here in the U.S..
Other Comments by J.C. Samuelson
485. Comment #16606 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Not looking for a response from this one, thought it would just be nice to add another innacurate prophecy in the bibleMalachi 3:1; 4:1, 5)
The gospel of Mark claims that John the Baptist fulfilled the prophecy given in Malachi. But the Malachi prophecy says that God will send Elijah before "the great and dreadful day of the LORD" in which the world will be consumed by fire. Yet John the Baptist flatly denied that he was Elijah (Elias) in John 1:21 and the earth was not destroyed after John's appearance.
"all knowng" god does it again
Other Comments by down_under
486. Comment #16613 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 3:38 pm
down_under:Mark do this for more
honestly and un-bias (if you are even capable of doin that) but your religion and the bible under the same scrutiny you put on other religions
seek the inacuracies and the failed prophecies and the ridiculous stories and events that have been proven not to have happened, seek the inconsistancies
Let me tell you, I do indeed get concerned when things sometimes don't seem to fit together in the Bible, and I do check them out.
Example 1:
Right now, I don't think I personally can give Billy a good answer about Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin (his post 203); but I'll keep working on it. And on the basis of my past experience of resolving apparent difficulties in the Bible, I'm confident I'll get to the bottom of it (or find someone else who has already done so) – before the people researching abiogenesis have cracked their exceptionally hard nut. If this thread's still going then (i.e. the earlier of those two times!), I promise to post an answer.
Example 2:
When working on one of my earlier comments in this thread, I got rather bothered that Deuteronomy 28:49-57 when read in the KJV didn't seem quite as coherent as I'd previously thought of it: in verses 53 and 55, it mentions enemies (plural) as opposed to the singular nation/he/enemy of verses 49-52 and 57 – this seemed confusing. But when I dug into it more, it all became clear: the problem is simply one of King James' translators' habit of variation of form when they thought it would read better. In fact the relevant Hebrew word in verses 53 and 55 is indeed singular, just as in verse 57, and unlike the plural form that occurs a number of times in relation to multiple prior attacking nations, earlier in the chapter.
If you do this mark you will realise your religion is no different to any other and (like them) incorrect.....
On the contrary, the more I do that, the greater the difference I discover between the Bible and other religious texts – thank you for prompting me to check out those details in the Koran – it has been most illuminating. If those are the best examples of "prophecy" in the Koran, it really is very different indeed from the Bible.
if you can (honestly) do this and still belive then im afraid you are to brainwashed by a christian society and beyond help
No. The "christian society" I see in the world today has moved a long way from Christianity's origins – just as the Bible clearly predicted it would. If anything, I am being "brainwashed" by the Bible itself (John 15:3). And since the more I read the Bible, the more I find it to be true and consistent with the world around me, providing a clear hope for the future – that Christ will come again to establish God's kingdom on the earth, and bring eternal life for those who believe and follow the Bible's teachings – I am perfectly happy to continue in that direction.
Other Comments by Mark Taunton
487. Comment #16614 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 3:43 pm
D_U and others have made the comment that the Theists don't want to comment on the "nasty" stuff in the OT. I'm not sure if this is the case. I for one have had a pop at this one but obviously not your satisfaction!You seem to think that the God of the OT is a different God to the one presented in the NT. I would disagree. You say that the OT God is sexist, cruel, genocidal, homosexual hating, etc, etc. Well I would disagree with the accusation of sexism and cruelty, but completely agree with the accusations of hating homosexual behaviour hating and committing genocide. I'll come back to them in minute. Perhaps you could provide us with specific examples of the sexism you accuse Him of?
However, it is undeniably a good thing to be bothered by violence, anger and apparent inequality. This illustrates the deep-seated sense of right and wrong, good and bad that most of us have.
Firstly on the issue of the God of the OT being different to the God of the NT. The God of the OT who struck down Achan (Joshua 7) and Uzzah (2Samuel 6) and the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15), is the same God who struck Herod, Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) dead on the spot in NT times. The same God who condemned homosexual behaviour in the OT condemns it in the NT. The God who said in the OT I am full of compassion, patience and justice and have a right to dispense it on whoever I want (Exodus 33) said the same in the NT (Romans 7). Don't really see much difference there?
As we progress through the Bible we get a bigger and fuller picture of the character of God which reaches its pinnacle in the character of the Lord Jesus who personified his character in a human being. The picture is a consistent one, there are no deviations from the fundamental moral principles outlined in the Law of Moses compared to the Sermon on the Mount, and in fact Jesus explicitly states that his mission was not to "destroy the Law or the Prophets…but to fulfil" them (Mathew 5:17).
What about the slaughter of women, children and animals? How can this possibly be reconciled with a God who encouraged "turning the other cheek" and "loving our neighbour"elsewhere in the OT as well as in the NT? Well whilst I personally would not feel adequately equipped to decide such a fate for anyone no matter what the evidence, I can accept that the Creator of the universe, an omnipotent, omniscient being, would be equipped to make such a judgement justly. Of course I accept that you make these arguments solely from a human perspective and refuse to accept the existence or authority of such a being as is described in the pages of the Bible. From a human perspective I completely agree with you, as the Bible teaches consistently, no human being in his or her own right has the authority to take the life of another. But these accounts are not written from a human perspective.
If we are talking about the Israelite conquest of Canaan in the first instance, I can accept that the prostitution, animal worship, child sacrifices and general cruelty associated with these peoples was completely abhorrent to God. However, He did give them the opportunity to respond to him and amend their ways as is evident from the testimony of Rahab (Joshua 2). They chose not to respond and their toxic culture continued to pollute the landscape and the dreadful things we read of came upon them.
There, you can accuse me of all sorts of things now and say, "we told you so – these religious folks are loonies that are going to go out and kill in the name of their God." But you would be wrong.
God does not demand our approval but He does call for our trust. When I read the Bible I find overwhelming evidence that God is trustworthy. He keeps His promises and I am assured that in the end He will be fair and just to all.
The bottom line is that you do not accept God's authority to be God! That's your choice. I believe that He is the creator and sustainer of all things and therefore has the right to be gracious to whom He wills, and to have compassion on whom He wills. I believe God when He says that He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone, not even the wicked (Ezekiel 18). In the final analysis the manner and timing of our death is not really of consequence, Jesus says: (Luke 13:1-5)
1 There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, "Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish."
When a thing perishes it ceases to exist and that's the one certainty in this life – death! The teaching of the Bible is that the single most important thing is not how or when we die, but whether we respond to Yahweh, the God of Israel, the God of the Bible. If we choose to ignore Him then our future is uncertain and our death whenever and however it comes is final.
Don't worry, I'm not even under the slightest impression that you will find this response satisfactory!
Other Comments by shauntheboy
488. Comment #16618 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 4:10 pm
D_U said:602. Comment #16532 by down_under on January 7, 2007 at 6:18 am
heo and mark
you have stilled failed to commen onthe following points
Why arent we allowed to shave? do you have a beard? if not tut tut god wont be pleased and you'll end up in hell!!
"And did you know that another "crime" in the bible is SHAVING YOUR BEARD!!!yup God loves beards and your banned from geting rid of it!!
Lev 19:27
Hope you have a long fluffy one!!"
Very funny!
I think if you read the passage concerned there is no rule against shaving your beard off as such, but they were not to shave the sides of their heads and trim their beards in the manner associated with the idolatry of Egypt from whence they had just come, and Canaan, where they were heading! These are practices that were inextricably linked with the abhorrent practices of these other nations, hence the reason for forbidding them. In doing this they distinguished themselves as a people set apart to the service of the Living God Yahweh, as opposed to Baal, Tammuz, Ra or any of the other idols of the surrounding cultures.
The Priests however were forbidden to shave off their beards.
Mark is obviously far too modest to mention it, but he did have a rather admirable beard last time I saw him, far better than I could ever grow (I can feel some beard envy creeping up on me!). It wasn't long and fluffy or trimmed into an elaborate design as is the custom of some, just a neat well groomed beard! So I can vouch that he is entirely in keeping with the spirit of Leviticus 19:27. :-)
You seem to misunderstand that there is no longer a requirement to keep the minutiae of the ceremonial aspects of the Law of Moses. The underlying principles do still apply as explained by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and the Apostle Paul at length.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
489. Comment #16619 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Well I was going to bed (long past time!) but I couldn't miss that. How many years ago would that be, Shaun? On second thoughts, don't answer - it'll make me feel old! I've still got a beard, by the way. Definitely doesn't feel right without one... Other Comments by Mark Taunton
490. Comment #16634 by shauntheboy on January 7, 2007 at 6:27 pm
I pulled an old dusty book off my book shelf this evening and I feel compelled to share a little passage from it with you. I do this in the context of Mark's ongoing discussion with D_U over the nature of prophecies in other religious texts. This book has my great grandmothers name on the inside cover and was first published in 1849, my edition is 1903 but is identical to the first edition. Here's the passage in which I would be interested to hear D_U's, or anyone else's comments:
"The truth is that there are two stages in the restoration of the Jews, the first is before the battle of Armageddon; and the second after it; but both pre-millennial…
There is then a partial and primary restoration of Jews before the manifestation, which is to serve as the nucleus, or basis, of future operations in the restoration of the rest of the tribes after he has appeared in the kingdom. The pre-adventual colonisation of Palestine will be on purely political principles; and the Jewish colonists will return in unbelief of the Messiahship of Jesus, and of the truth as it is in him. They will emigrate thither as agriculturalists and traders in the hope of ultimately establishing their commonwealth, but more immediately of getting rich in silver and gold by commerce with India, and in cattle goods by their industry at home under the efficient protection of the British power
I know not whether the men, who at present, contrive the foreign policy of Britain, entertain the idea of assuming the sovereignty of the Holy Land, and of promoting it's colonisation by the Jews; their present intentions, however, are of no importance one way or the other; because they will be compelled, by events soon to happen, to do what, under existing circumstances, heaven and earth combined could not move them to attempt…..The finger of God has indicated a course to be pursued by Britain which cannot be evaded, and which her counsellors will not only be willing, but eager to adopt when the crisis comes upon them" (Thomas 1848)
Now, I wonder how a man who wrote these things whilst Palestine was being governed by the Turks, and would continue to be for another 69 years, could predict so accurately future events in the Middle East? The first Zionist Congress was in 1897-98 yet 50 years into the future. The Balfour declaration stating Britain's commitment to providing a homeland in Palestine for the Jews was made in 1917. Finally in 1948 the Jewish state was formed when the official decalration of the State of Israel occurred, 100 years after the writing of the above passage.
Would anyone like to take a stab at predicting who will be the dominant power over-seeing Palestine 70 years from now? How about predicting which people will inhabit a particular land and what the nature of their political and economic activity will be 100 years from now? The bottom line is that there was nothing special about the man who wrote these words other than that he read his Bible and trusted what was written. This illustrates quite clearly the point that Mark has been making that: Bible prophecy is in a league of its own when it comes to specificity. None of the other religious texts come within a million miles of it.
Shaun
Other Comments by shauntheboy
491. Comment #16678 by jaf on January 8, 2007 at 2:42 am
"[...] the abundant proof that the God of the Bible very much exists."Show me some. Show me one good hard piece of testable, repeatable, predictive evidence.
Other Comments by jaf
492. Comment #16681 by fonex_86 on January 8, 2007 at 3:15 am
shauntheboy, you said: "The bottom line is that there was nothing special about the man who wrote these words other than that he read his Bible and trusted what was written."OK, since you and mark seem to believe in the bible so much, could you please read your bible again, and, based on what you read, tell me what's going to happen to Israel in 10 years?
The passage you quote was written in 1848. Would it have sounded that way if it was written in, say, the age of the crusaders? Isn't it all based on the same book?
Other Comments by fonex_86
493. Comment #16685 by fonex_86 on January 8, 2007 at 4:09 am
God? Consistent? OK, what happened to the strict dietary habits imposed by said god on ancient Israelites? Suddenly it's ok to eat pork, grasshoppers and squid? Looks to me like he had a change of heart.What about: "An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever:..."
(Deuteronomy 23:3)? Pretty racist to me. Then suddenly, 2000 years later, everyone is "God's Children" again?!? What gives?
Other Comments by fonex_86
494. Comment #16707 by Theo on January 8, 2007 at 8:15 am
d_u,That is disputed.....but regardless of wether it was Angels or Demons are you telling me you honestly belive they crossbred with humans to make giants???
Well that depends on what your definition of a giant is. I am thinking men of large stature. The tallest normal man in the world measures around 7 foot 8. I would truly feel like a grasshopper in his presence! It is reasonable that the nephilim could have probably been larger too.
regardless........their are still unicorns in the bible
You seem to be obsessed with the word Unicorn in the KJV (and the WBS as Billy pointed out). The animal you don't seem to care much about. Don't worry too much about it though; it happens to the best of us.
as far as i can see, the snake spoke of his own accord......without your omnipitant God even knowing about it!!!!! (emp. Added)
That's the problem right there.
God placed the tree and serpent there so that man can be tested
Where does it say this??
Thought you did not fancy bible quoting? Fortunately (or unfortunately in some circumstances) simple reading and understanding is required for this.
hahahaha Theo are you joking!!!!!!! thousands and thousands of fossils have been discovered!!! they are eveywhere!!!!! some places have hundreds in just one area!!! Fossils are ANYTHING BUT rare!!!! and to make this statement provves you dont know what you are talking about!
Yeah d_u, the thousands and thousands of fossils to represent the billions upon billions of lifeforms that ever existed makes them preeeetty rare.
Im sorry but the Dodo bird went extinct 500 years ago, the Dinosaurs 65 million!!!! to compare the 2 is ridiculous and unfair!
The fossil record should not be resorted to as a surefire way of determining co existence:" The limitations of the vertebrate fossil record can be easily illustrated. The famous fossil Archaeopteryx, occurring in a rock unit renowned for its fossil preservation, is represented by only seven known specimens, of which only two are essentially complete. Considering how many individuals of this genus probably lived and died over the thousands or millions of years of its existence, these few known specimens give some feeling for how few individuals are actually preserved as fossils and subsequently discovered. Yet this example actually represents an unusual wealth of material. The great majority of fossil vertebrate species are represented by only very fragmentary remains, and many are described on the basis of single specimens or from single localities. Complete skeletons are exceptionally rare. For many fossil taxa, particularly small mammals, the only fossils are teeth and jaw fragments. If so many fossil vertebrate species are represented by single specimens, the number of completely unknown species must be enormous!"(Keith B. Miller Department of Geology Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506)
plus its FAR easier to belive matter came from nothing as its nothing more than a few atoms,
Really? Something had to have always existed whether it is matter, energy, singularity, super strings or a creator.
you belive a complex intelligent being has just always been there.....my friend that is ludicrus and impossible
Don't you mean improbable?
Comment (602)
Shauntheboy answered a few of the questions within your post. I will just add to them
"Isnt it a nice co-incidence that you were convineantly Born into the correct religion aswell!! I feel sorry for all those people born in places like Iraq and India, who will burn in hell jsut for being born in the wrong country!! man what a fair and loving God you worship!"
Christianity is known in those regions, its their job to choose what is true and what is false.
If th great flood kiled the dinosaurs (haha) THEN WHAT KILLED THE FLYING AND SWIMMING DINOSAURS?!?! this one is always brushed over by theists. "That 2 of EVERY ANIMAL!! (now trust me thats ALOT!! there are several species of Wallaby alone!) all fit on 1 boat then somehow managed to redistribute themselves to their respective habitats!!!
Koalas going back to Australia, Polar bears to the arctic, etc etc"
See comment 574
how languages have evolved (Spanish and French from latin, English and German from Germanic etc etc) is ignored?
I asked for proof of this remember?
And how god didnt even know about america or australia, funnily enough in a time when no-humans did......coincidence?
Do you KNOW that God did not know? Or are you assuming that because he made no mention of it he did not know? I believe it's the latter. The bible never mentioned cockroaches, does that mean that the Israelites and God did not know about that either?
Its quite a simple concept, for example there are common items that were not mentioned in the God Delusion. Does that mean that R.D. did not know about them? Most likely not, but you see his book had a purpose, and all the information presented was RELEVANT to that purpose. Likewise the bible is neither a science textbook nor a book of general knowledge although it may contain such information. The purpose of the bible is the reconciliation of man to God and all the information presented within scripture is centered on that purpose.
Other Comments by Theo
495. Comment #16708 by Theo on January 8, 2007 at 8:19 am
BillySands comment (599) You miss the point. Nothing has been refuted.
It was not a refutation, it was a question.
Can you personally build a computer from sand, malachite and ethylene? no? others can. You just dont know how to.
Wouldn't that require intelligent design?
I think E=MC2 shows matter/ energy is not everlasting.
Not only that, I just remembered the concept of anti matter! Silly me!
Your special appeal to a designer makes your hypothesis even more unlikely by adding even more complexity (the need to explain the existance of a complex designer). It is strange that you realise the difficulty of this approach in any possible pan-spermia explanation, but ignore it when hypothesising a designer.
If indeed there was a creator, the next question would be who created the creator, obviously someone with greater power and intelligence. And who created that creator? It would also have to be someone with greater power and intelligence, and so it would keep on going where it would point to a being possessing infinite qualities, an eternal ultimate creator. Which just so happen to be type of Being described in the bible.
Other Comments by Theo
496. Comment #16711 by shauntheboy on January 8, 2007 at 8:33 am
Hi Fonex86I can give you some specifics from Bible prophecy which tell us what will happen to the Jewish nation in the future. Whether these things will happen specifically within the next ten years is not certain, perhaps likely in my opinion, but not certain. You seem to imply that predicting events in the near future is more difficult than predicting events in the distant future? The timescale, to a certain degree is irrelevant, the fact that the things prophesied are specific and are certain to happen is the point. I could make a vague prediction and hedge my bets (a bit like in some of the examples given by D_U and co), but the key issue with Bible prophecy is that it specifies details of the events in advance, centuries, sometimes millennia before they occur.
I presume when you say "how would these things have looked during the middle ages or at the time of the crusades", you are implying that they might fit with Britain's political persuasion at that time? If that is your point I would disagree. The Jews were despised in Britain during the Middle Ages (expelled by Edward 1 in 1290) as in most parts of Europe. The thought of handing them the Holy Land as an independent sovereign state would have been anathema to the political / religious leaders of this era. Jewish emancipation didn't take place in Britain until 1858, ten years after the writing of the book quoted. In fact, thinking of the Balfour declaration again, the Jewish homeland was actually established despite the attempts of many in the British govt of the day (who were staunchly pro-Arab) to prevent it.
Instead of me telling you what I think Bible prophecy says will happen to Israel, I'll let you read some more predictions based on Bible prophecy written by the same author. As he wrote more than 150 years ago and is now dead and buried, he cannot not be accused, as I could, of being close enough to the events to make an educated guess or place a current day spin on the prophecies. I have only included exerts from his writings not the full context for the sake of space. I'll be happy put the full context in if you like, but hopefully what I have posted will give you the jist!
Describing events that remain yet future to us he says:
…there will be in the latter days a dominion, ruling over all the countries mainly comprehended, in the limits of the successive empires of Babylon, Persia, Greece, and Rome; and represented by the image as a whole;(Daniel 2) and which will be broken by a power from heaven, which will utterly destroy it, and set up an empire which will cover all the territory it possessed.
I shall be able to show from other parts of the prophetic word, that the power destined to play the conspicuous part indicated above, is Russia. That it will over-run all the ten kingdoms (Western Europe), subdue Turkey, and incorporate Persia into its empire….
Britain cannot be included among them unless it is first conquered by the over-shadowing power (Russia); which it will not be, as is clearly demonstrable from many parts of the divine testimony. Russia will command the land, and Britain rule the sea….
…we might look for an earthly conqueror to overthrow the dominion of the (Russian) Autocrat, as he will overthrow the rest. But the power that wields the stone (Daniel 2) is plainly declared in the interpretation. It is the God of heaven who pulverizes the image, and sweeps its chaffy dust away by the whirling tempest which wrecks the kingdoms of the world, and transfers them to His saints. The kingdom of the stone grinds to powder whatsoever it falls upon, and then becomes a great mountain, or empire of nations, and fills the whole earth.
….the territories comprehended in the dominions of the four beasts (Daniel 4) to their full extent will be divided between two independent dominions of the Latter Days, namely, that of Gogue (Russia), and that of the Lion of Tarshish (Anglo-American). Gogue's will include so much of the territory as to entitle his dominion to be represented by Nebuchadnezzar's Image. Assyria proper, Persia, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Mesopotamia; Egypt, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, Spain, Portugal, Sardinia, Naples, Lombardy, Bavaria, Hungary, and Greece -- countries all included in the catalogue given by Ezekiel (38-39) in his prophecy of Gogue -- are symbolized by the head, breast, body, thighs, legs, and toes of the Image. These are at the crisis united together in one dominion, which is broken to pieces as the result of the battle of Armageddon…..
The Lion of Tarshish is Alexandrine in its dominion, and will then possess much of the territory represented by the Unicorn Goat and the Leopard, all indeed not included in the Image. Alexander the Great extended his conquests over Afghanistan, the Punjaub, and into India beyond the Indus….
Assyria, Persia, and Britain will continue to exist as peoples for "a season and a time," being subject and obedient to the King of Israel, in the light of whose government they will walk with joy, and lay their wealth and honor at his glorious feet. (Thomas 1848)
So, I think it is pretty clear that we can see the wheels of this prophecy in motion, being fulfilled in front of our eyes to day. In other words there will be a confederacy of nations in Europe in the footprint of the old Western Roman Empire. These nations will come under the influence and rule of an autocratic Russian leader who will also control the territory of the old Eastern Roman Empire. This confederacy will be in opposition to a power that is British in nature (an Anglo-American-Commonwealth?), which will also be the protectorate of Israel at this time. Additionally, this power will have influence over, and be allied with, the territories of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and India.
The Russian confederacy will invade Israel with its allies, including specifically, Ethiopia, Libya, Iran, France, Germany. The Anglo-American power will object but will be impotent militarily to prevent it.
God will destroy the Russian confederacy with its allies, Christ will be established on David's throne in Jerusalem and begin the process of exerting his influence and authority over all the remaining nations. Some of the nations will remain for a time during the reign of Christ, but ultimately all will become one people.
Some of the nations mentioned by the writer in 1848 have changed their name or been absorbed. Additionally, the only world power that he could see in his day capable of facing up to the Russian autocrat was the mighty British Empire, that mantle of imperialism has now undoubtedly been taken up by the US, who equally fit the "Tarshish and all the young lions thereof" description, she being a "young lion" whose growth and power has now outstripped the old lion she broke away from in 1776. This man could obviously only try to understand how the prophesied events would proceed in the light of the times he lived, and these minor issues do not effect the impact of the specificity he was able to illicit.
Britain's membership of the EU has been a conundrum to some students of Bible prophecy, but in recent years it has become quite clear that despite being a member of the EU for the obvious economic benefit that brings her, Britain's outlook on the world is very different from her European neighbours and her first allegiance is to the nations of the Commonwealth and the USA. The presence of Britain, America and other Commonwealth troops in Afghanistan, the reinforcing of the naval presence in the Gulf and Mediterranean region all seem to fit remarkably well with the words penned by this man more than 150 years ago. He was either incredibly lucky in his guesses, possessed some remarkable political insight that enabled him to accurately predict events 100+ years into the future or Bible prophecy is real. Take your pick…………….
Shaun
Othe
451. Comment #16538 by Mark Taunton on January 7, 2007 at 7:52 am
Your view is not one I've encountered much before now. If you're right, then Israel, about to enter and take possession of the promised land, would quite sensibly expect later to be invaded, besieged, taken captive and dispersed among all peoples, because of their disobedience to Yahweh. Please, can you explain how that's in any way "obvious"?
Indeed, if your statement is true, then a lot of sceptical Bible critics have wasted a lot of effort on Daniel. They have been so determined to discredit it that they insist on the notion that Daniel was not written in the time it describes, but was made up far later. The primary reason they seek to do that is because the immensely detailed prophecy the book contains must "obviously" have been written after the fact, since it is such a remarkable match to the history of the period Daniel's words anticipated. The same argument has also been presented here by several other contributors, in relation to earlier prophets. But from what you say, they really needn't have bothered – Daniel and the other prophets were merely stating "the obvious" anyway...?
Other Comments by Mark Taunton