|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 47 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,533 Year: 855/6,935 Month: 136/719 Week: 128/116 Day: 2/40 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6223 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is the bible the word of God or men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The semantics of the term HOLY BOOKS aside [all religions say that], is that all such holy books do not make any claims which impacts on science and ultimate questions; most holy books cannot even evidence history. Genesis is a holy book to many people of numerous religious beliefs - but its connection with science is: this is also a book which is scientific, and one can say, the introduction of science. Because here we find an orderly, sequenced and logical description of creation, which is a scientific premise even if it does not fully allign with all of science's understandings at this particular time. Equally, there is no basis the OT was authored by many writers at different times: this is baseless and has not a shred of evidence, while contradicting its textual evidences: how can numerous writers, at different times, describe scientifically verified details and events 2000 years ago - including 1000s of names, dates and places - with the accuracy of the OT? With the aspect of science, and if we look at the enigmatic issue of the universe origins, we find a vindication of the science of genesis: it opens with the universe being FINITE [it had a beginning], and the current inclination to I.D.- namely a complexity must have a transcendent intelligence as its foundation. At the present time and current status quo of science, there is no alternative to Genesis version:
quote: Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Moses did not write his own epitaph - Joshua did. This can be verified by examining the dates nominated for Moses' death and verses thereafter, and alligning it with the OT calendar. There are numerous such items which intitially cast a doubt, but become clarified upon better deliberation. It is pointless taking up such items, instead of provable stats in the OT, which numbers in their millions, and the way to assess this work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Yes, an orderly, step by step description is both scientific and mathematical, with each step following the previous and the next. These are posited as constants, and each generation of man will examine them according to their status of knowledge. Being scientific does not mean alligning only with all particulars held by current science; a difference in some factors does not negate or invalidate the science premise. In fact, Genesis introduced the first such scientific treatise in recorded history - which means with the universe origins, we are not debating 'holy books' but only genesis - there are no holy books elsewhere which meet such criteria. The hellenist and babylonian editions of humanised dieties bashing each other's brains for supremecy is not science, not provable and totally varied from genesis - scientifically, mathematically and historically. Genesis has impacted on all science and scientists, and all their directions: I know of no other ancient document which does that.
quote: The flood story is debated in another thread, and is not the basis of evidencing your point. The fact is, there is no proof, only incorrect understandings and readings. The best evidence is whether the OT calendar, the oldest and most accurate, alligns with 100s of 1000s of dates throughout the OT - this is the math test; whether the names listed 5,500 years ago are authentic from an archeological pov - this is the historical tests [and impossible a feat for numerous writers in different periods to perform!]; if the constants of science are vindicated; etc. IOW, examine a document by its provable stats - and there are 100s of 1000s of these spread in its words, verses and paras.
quote: The foremost verification used by scientists here, is 'NAMES' - a 5000 year name does NOT appear 4,500 years ago. The second means is writings style; third is histrocial factors from other depictions.
quote: From its opeing words. Genesis begins with the universe it is about to describe, being 'FINITE: that it had a beginning. ToE runs far from a background of its premise. That the universe is finite, is for science to examine and conclude, and this vindicates the first and foremost scientific preamble of the universe. It means all further descriptions must allign with this factor. Next up, all universe contained items are also finite, and never existed pre-universe; Genesis correctly goes on to describe these as post universe. This foremost scientific constant of finite was introduced by Abraham [Monotheism]; one must not be diverted by the decpetively seeming biblespeak here - this was written for all generations of man, and dates over 3000 years old. To be scientific, one must be relative of the spacetime.
quote: The universe was created by a creator, with wisdom - its wisdom is what science explains. This is I.D. There is no place in the universe w/o intelligence and design; science is its proof in theories and equations, which are precedent of science recognising them.
quote: The BB has to evidence itself in a FINITE realm: no particle existed till post-universe. Here, let me point to a great discrepency in any scientific view. The notion of creation vs evolution, is a misnomer. Science and evolution are vested post-universe only; the BB is also a post-uni premise. We do not know anything about the origins of anything. The correct premise is, CREATIONISM; SCIENCE/EVOLUTION. This stands untill we have a provable premise how a finite universe emerged - and we cannot utilise any tools and elements which are in the current universe - including parallel and multi universe scenarios. That is the enigma here. genesis opens with the second alphabet - meaning we can only know of the B to Z, the A being totally elusive. Bearing this in mind, we will not get bogged down in debates between creation and science; these are two totally different faculties, and science only relates to the B-Z. We know nothing about origins of ANYTHING whatsoever, and we remain in a science debate [B-Z], as long as we understand this difference - science can tell us nothing about origins, and thus cannot dislodge genesis: science can only validate ir invalidate certains factors of genesis post-creation.
quote: Honesty refers not to truth but truthfullness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This applies to academic maths only: we cannot prove maths by maths. Genesis can be proved by numerous factors: historical veirfication via archeology; math proof via datings; science proof via provable analogous experiments. The OT has never been disproven - by non-academic, hard proof; while 1000s of its stats have been proved. Upto some 15 years ago, archeologists claimed David was a myth - this has been overturned by the Tel Dan find, evidencing David was a true historical figure and wrote the psalms 3000 years ago; the psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses, and alligns with the complete narratives of the OT. I find ToE adherents prefer to pick what they like, and ignore a host of positives about Genesis.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: If you give 10 words per verse, and apply all the OT upto Micah - the final OT book, you have millions of stats and sopecs, or 100s of 1000s if only the five books are considered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: In a court trial, a diary is considered as proof - even in a murder trial. If the OT diarised account is provable of its historicity, it renders it an athentic account. However, we cannot prove Creationism or dislodge it, and the OT vindicates itself by declaring the Creator is not provable. There is no arguement left here.
quote: Yes, it does. Moses was a mere 250 years from David; all the writings, datings and historical finds here evidence authenticity. Contrastingly, there is not a shred of disputing contemporary evidence - thus your statement is w/o basis. Moses is believed in and has impacted humanity, more than any other figure who ever existed, by period of time and concencus: 2B christians; 1.2B muslims and 15M Jews: more than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. The OT is the world's most proven document - despite its anciency.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No, there's not two stories, but correctly portrayed by genesis. Ch 1 is a generic creation; ch 2 becomes a personalised one when man becomes historical. Moses is not proven and the only figure of this status, but evidenced; you ignored that while predating Abraham's burial is known, Moses' burial was never known - the non-proof is alligned with the text narratives. The premise of the OT should rely on provable, historical stats. The OT cannot be posited as 'stories' - they contain evidential dates and names of kings, nations and cities, with far more specifics than concerning Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, even though those were more recent figures and should not fall short of evidence. Humanity's enigma is, we have a finite universe - and it is inexplicable outside the Genesis creationism premise: the fulcrum factor here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Grammar was introduced in the OT. One of its requirements is, the most coherent path must be take in comprehension. The notion of a third party becomes moot here, while that of asking how can one write his own epitaph becomes an errorful path. Almost the entire narratives of the OT are in a third person, the correct mode of a retrospection account. Moses' death description is immediately followed by the book of Joshua, his successor, and accounts for a close-off of the OT five books.
Further, the premise of a modern novel is out of premise here: writings were more complicated before, and this is seen most in the pristine writings of the OT, emulated by the greatest writers. The first expressionism and third party disposition comes from the OT; the shortest distance between two words are used; the most appropriate adjestives employed; controversial subjects like incest and beastiality are dealt with with the stroke of a few words - w/o resorting to expletives; and there is a total interaction of all its stats. Eg: The giving of the 10 commandments' date and day is known, by calculating all the 3000 years' dates in the OT calendar. In fact, the texts also interact. Consider the texts, which says 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE *THIS DAY* AS THE SABBATH'; that *THIS DAY* was in fact a Saturday! Where can we find such mathematical acumen anywhere else - never mind in such an ancient text? Where can we find the first alphabetical books, so advanced that it incorporates advanced grammar and numerals within the alphabets? Where can we find the first scientific cencus, in their millions, with sub-totals of gender and ages - with sum totals of verification at the final count? These cannot be called 'stories'. If we find a statute which says the pig is the only animal with a hidden biological trait not shared by any other animal, and this is vindicated after 3500 years, one must ask how this could be known: did Moses know there was no such animal in Tasmania or the Amazons? A fluke guess becomes negated when we find four other stats about different animals, even of fish in the oceans. This makes me see that biology was fully understood here. So was medicine, which was first introduced here, with its first separation from the occult: the treatment, ID and quarantine of malignant, infectious and contagious deseases is introduced with the desease of Leprosy. Medicine is the firerunner of science. The first scientific equation is the universe is finite, and repro comes from the seed factor. At least, there is great science here - which has never been dislodged. That the first creation chapter uses a technical word for 'create' [something from nothing], which does not appear again after the first verse, and is replaced by 'formed [something from something else] - it does not appear a 'typo' but intentional; specially when it alligns with Creationism. This is why these do not appear as stories of myth or chance - else I would not pursue such thoughts. There is a notorious phobia of any writings which allign with a theology or creationism - because it contradicts what bible bashers like to hear. But the OT is varied from all other bibles - it appeared 2000 years before the NT and Quran, and contains what those do not even mention: the universe origins. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The second is an expanded explation of the first. 'Human' kind was the last of the chronological life forms; human is then posited as a dual-gendered life in its originality, and separated later. There is no alternative to this. The texts is perfectly presented. Genesis had to first introduce the concept and premise of a human's emergence; then explain what that is. Its qualification is in 'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM' - meaning the first human was dual-gendered, and there is no alternative to this, concerning all life forms in their original appearence. The same vercity applies with your other questions. There are not two names in Genesis - there are no names for the Creator in the OT. Those are descriptive and contextual: one concerns creation through nature; the second in respect of a speech endowed life form, whereby direct interaction and dialogue is employed. The first reference is an objective one; the second a subjective one. It is how you would explain to a child how the house he lives in appeared: you would speak objectively first, because it predates the child's emergence; then when the child is relevent and born, you would speak subjectively. It alligns with Monotheism, and that 'THERE IS NO OTHER'. The OT is like a maths treatise - all its tets are interactive and intergrated, so all stats must be factored. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Before the rains, there was no man to till the ground. Immediately, we find here the reason for introducing the rains in the following verse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I cannot do that. And you should ask such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: This is correct. Eve appears after it is evident Adam is different from all other animals, being speech endowed. ToE failed to factor this difference, accounting human as one of the animal species. In a science thread, we should stick to scientific or historical or mathematic factors, not semantics of what is a rich and complicated texts, requiring many years of deliberation and understanding.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Both chaters are a continuation, with words and terms from each other. The first describes the emergence of humans from a creational aspect; the second is a human in his role as a man in the real world. You will find animals listed generically in ch. 1, then thereafter we find animal rights laws, and how they must be treated. There is perfect protocol here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: No mistake here. Ch 1 says Adam [a generic human here] was dual-gendered. Ch 2 makes it clear his mate is not an animal; when this is evidenced, then only is Eve seperated. You missed the point here: that there is no alternative to the dual-gendered origin of life forms. There is evidence and proof throughout Genesis, and this is for us to determine, via science. Maybe you would like to explain how a FINITE universe emerged, in any form varied from Genesis: You cannot use any products or elements within the universe - because these too were finite and post universe - obviously. Nor can you retreat to parallel or multi universes, as this would contradict the finite factor. Its thus you who does not understand what Genesis is saying, and why I support it. if you follow ToE backwards, you end up in a brick wall. The universe is finite: the opening preamble in genesis. Anything postulated thereafter has to allign with that factor. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3983 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Show us your understanding of ToE, by explaining why we have to wait millions of years to witness what is an ON-GOING PROCESS? Caution - this calls for some maths! The universe being finite has pivotal impacts: a foundation premises becomes non-negotiable here. NS & Adaptation cannot be deemed as process subject to only one planet - it would have to be pervasive - even in harsher environs. Explain why ToE works on this planet's harsh claimates, in volcanic cores and at the base of oceans where there is no light? Why does gravity process not suffer the cavuum of ToE on other planets? Adaptation means it can adapt to gasses other than oxygen, and elements other than water - if the name employed has any meaning. We find both issues never answered - both the time factor and the universal constancy factors. We find ToE supports limited to an after the fact process, yet we see terms such as CREATION VS EVOLUTION: how can an after the fact process compete with an origins premise?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025