-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Statistical Evidence that Evolution and Religion are Accepted
- Thread starter Willamena
- Start date
TACRN01
Member
What a shame....common sense got the better of them
If the universe didn't spring/come forth from nothing then there has to be at least one thing that has always existed(eternal), and if all matter and energy erupted from a point of singularity or the big bang, wouldn't that cosmic egg(maybe this is outdated idea) be basically all powerful relative to us? So if this eternal all powerful (source/being/God) exists, how hard would it be for Him to do this thing? Even humans can clone sheep now days.
Isaiah 7:14 (New International Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (Amplified Bible)
14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version)
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (American Standard Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I was born in the 1980's, no first hand emprical evidence/experience.
I take this by faith.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
What does the big bang have to do with this? I was simply responding to the ludicris people who believe jesus was born from a virgin.
Posting scripture is basically like posting something in chinese which i dont speak. I don't even read scripture, its value in this is about 0.
TACRN01
Member
Well if a person casually thinks about the virgin birth it would seem like common sense to deny it. But if there is a God and He is very very powerful (big bang example)He can probably tread in places that even we are starting to go (cloning sheep-reproductive "tinkering"?)
Its never to late to learn chinese or anything else for that matter.
These are old testament scriptures from ~700BC the ludicris people who believe jesus was born from a virgin take by faith.
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
What makes you think you can speak for God?
Unlike Chinese, learning to fabricate what one learns in the bible from mythological stories that were once thought to be true by all is somewhat counter-productive.
Do those people also believe in Goblins and fairies?
Yea, and they held their last meeting on wednesday night down the corner in the public phone booth.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
TACRN01 Offline
Religion: Christian
Title:Freshman Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by darkendless
What a shame....common sense got the better of them
If the universe didn't spring/come forth from nothing then there has to be at least one thing that has always existed(eternal), and if all matter and energy erupted from a point of singularity or the big bang, wouldn't that cosmic egg(maybe this is outdated idea) be basically all powerful relative to us? So if this eternal all powerful (source/being/God) exists, how hard would it be for Him to do this thing? Even humans can clone sheep now days.
Isaiah 7:14 (New International Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (Amplified Bible)
14Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: Behold, the young woman who is unmarried and a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel [God with us].
Isaiah 7:14 (King James Version)
14Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Isaiah 7:14 (American Standard Version)
14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
I was born in the 1980's, no first hand emprical evidence/experience.
I take this by faith.
Surely. Jesus was just a man , a good one, but just a man, the same as all the others mentioned in the religious books. Then there is all this talk of a virgin birth. How politically correct and convenient. That sleazy bloke Gabrielle (an angel - hardly) simply had intercourse with Mary and "begot" Jesus. I am sure the young goat herder Mary was given a comprehensive sex education, NOT. Technically Mary cannot have had a virgin birth of an XY male. (where did the Y chromosome come from) Virgin birth ie a clone could only be XX ie FEMALE). Poor Joseph! Pity they didn't have paternity testing in those days.
So who are we kidding.
God is a woman, the secret is out!
PS the Torah version seems more logical, simply indicating a maid not necessarily a virgin. I guess it's all in the interpretation.
TACRN01
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by TACRN01
Well if a person casually thinks about the virgin birth it would seem like common sense to deny it. But if there is a God and He is very very powerful (big bang example)He can probably tread in places that even we are starting to go (cloning sheep-reproductive "tinkering"?)[/quote]
How is contemplating and reflecting on omnipotence speaking for God?
Originally Posted by TACRN01
Well if a person casually thinks about the virgin birth it would seem like common sense to deny it. But if there is a God and He is very very powerful (big bang example)He can probably tread in places that even we are starting to go (cloning sheep-reproductive "tinkering"?)[/quote]
How is contemplating and reflecting on omnipotence speaking for God?
What makes them mythological to a man? Probably a naturalist philosophy. "There is no God but if there is He is bound by the laws of nature", perhaps making Him no real God at all. To a man who reflects/contemplates on a omnipotent God these stories don't have to be mythological. Is it counter-productive to learn about others philosophies/world view?
Why would they? There are no historical-narrative, poetic, prophetic, or proverbial scriptures containing said beings.
The Hebrew has a specific term for "Virgin," and that word Is "Bethulah," which Isaiah would have used if his prophecy were to infer that a virgin would conceive and bear a child. But this was not his intention and therefore he used the Hebrew word, "Almah" which means "Concealment: unmarried female".
Some 500 years after Isaiah, In transcribing the words of the prophet Isaiah, that an unmarried female would conceive and bear a child, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were forced to use the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, and denotes virgin only by implication. Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiahs words, (An unmarried woman would conceive etc) to the best of his ability, was not implying that the woman was a virgin, when forced to use the Greek 'parthentos,' being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning.
The first time that Virgin appears in any translation of the Bible, in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin.
The 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, was due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been unified by its unorthodox champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Docetism, the concept that Jesus existed as a spirit rather than a human being, which had become prevalent in the evolving Christian movement and was the teaching of the anti-christ as warned by John, in 1st John 4: 1-3, and 2nd John verses 7 to 11; by the second century had theoretically been stamped out in Alexandria.
Nevertheless they still held to the view that Jesus had to have been too much of a God to have had the normal needs of we mere human beings, such as eating, drinking and excretion etc, and in the second century A.D., Clement the bishop of Alexandria wrote this, It would be ridiculous to imagine that the body of the Redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.
Like most of those who are deceived by the teachings of the anti-christ which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, he ignored the truth of scripture that Jesus must have been suffering the extreme pangs of hunger when Satan tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread. Or otherwise, He saw Satan as some sort of an idiot.
And it was in the 4th century, that King Constantine, sick to the gut of the abuse that was being flung at each other by the many different evolving groups of Christianity, Constantine himself, in 325 A.D., decided to call together, all the Christian leaders of the different evolving bodies of belief, to the first ever World Council of Churches: at the town of Nicaea in what today is Turkey, and there under the dominating presence and the unspoken threats of King Constantine, the Universal church was born.
Some 500 years after Isaiah, In transcribing the words of the prophet Isaiah, that an unmarried female would conceive and bear a child, into Greek, which unlike the Hebrew language, does not have a specific term for virgin, the authors of the Septuagint and Matthew were forced to use the Greek word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, and denotes virgin only by implication. Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiahs words, (An unmarried woman would conceive etc) to the best of his ability, was not implying that the woman was a virgin, when forced to use the Greek 'parthentos,' being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning.
The first time that Virgin appears in any translation of the Bible, in reference to the mother of Jesus is when it was translated to Latin.
The 5th century Latin Bible The Vulgate, was due mainly to the effort of Jerome who was commissioned to make a revision of the books that had already been translated to Latin by in most cases, persons unknown, and with those books translated by Jerome himself, which revision was completed in 405 A.D. became the official bible of the universal church that had been unified by its unorthodox champion, King Constantine, who had his father Constantius deified and was accorded the same honour himself after his death.
Docetism, the concept that Jesus existed as a spirit rather than a human being, which had become prevalent in the evolving Christian movement and was the teaching of the anti-christ as warned by John, in 1st John 4: 1-3, and 2nd John verses 7 to 11; by the second century had theoretically been stamped out in Alexandria.
Nevertheless they still held to the view that Jesus had to have been too much of a God to have had the normal needs of we mere human beings, such as eating, drinking and excretion etc, and in the second century A.D., Clement the bishop of Alexandria wrote this, It would be ridiculous to imagine that the body of the Redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.
Like most of those who are deceived by the teachings of the anti-christ which refuses to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, he ignored the truth of scripture that Jesus must have been suffering the extreme pangs of hunger when Satan tried to tempt him into turning stones into bread. Or otherwise, He saw Satan as some sort of an idiot.
And it was in the 4th century, that King Constantine, sick to the gut of the abuse that was being flung at each other by the many different evolving groups of Christianity, Constantine himself, in 325 A.D., decided to call together, all the Christian leaders of the different evolving bodies of belief, to the first ever World Council of Churches: at the town of Nicaea in what today is Turkey, and there under the dominating presence and the unspoken threats of King Constantine, the Universal church was born.
TACRN01
Member
Tiapan, I disagree on this point. I'm sure you have heard this before but if Jesus was just a man then He wasn't a good man. He claimed to be God incarnate. Perhaps He was kind to certain people(but still hard on others) and forgiving to certain people, but if He was just a man, He lead people on and decieved them into thinking He was God incarnate. Willingly participating in the act of deception. Ultimately leading to these people's voluntary martrydom.
I agree, I was speaking more about 'reproductive tinkering' humans are treading in now. That we can carry these actions out but God doesn't have that knowledge or power in this area is a strange line of reasoning. If The Christ HAD to be born of a virgin God can probably carry that out. Not meaning that Jesus was a clone of Mary, sorry for the confusion. I can be gray sometimes.
Tiapan I agree with you fully. It is in the interpretation. The Torah was interpreted and translated into the Koine Greek by count them 70 Rabbis around the time of Alexander. The word ‘neanis’ is the Greek word for ‘young woman’. These 70 Rabbis, the Septuagint translators rendered it parthenos, which, of course, means virgin. This gives us a keen insight into Hellenistic Juduism understanding of scripture around ~300BC
The term “virgin” is required by the context. The birth of the son in Isaiah 7:14 is said to be a sign from God. I would not hold that an abundant everyday occurance is a sign from God.
Parthenos definition
Par·thenos (pär′t̸hə näs′
noun
a virgin: an epithet of several Greek goddesses, esp. of Athena
Etymology: < Gr parthenos
Last edited:
darkendless
Guardian of Asgaard
You're giving him characteristics that you assume he has. Its not up to you to decide what God can and cannot do. You may only let what you see God do be your example, and what he has done is nothing.
Their complete failure to be historically and scientifically accurate. I will pick on the book of Genisis. The story of Noah is completely untrue for it is impossible that the earth was covered in water. Even if it was possible, its impossible to have happened since evidence does not exist in the soil profiles around the world.
The story of Merlin with dragons and magic holds about as much weight poetically and hostorically as the bible.
for it is impossible that the earth was covered in water.
There was once a world wherein one massive continent, which was surrounded by water, was broken up into seven tectonic plates. The Jurassic age in which the 3 million odd year rule of the old upright walking reptile, The Great Dinosaurs, was brought to its finish by what is thought to have been a cataclysmic comet collision with the earth some 145 million years ago when the super continent of Pangaea began to break up, separating the continental tectonic plates and the overall sea level began to rise, which ushered in the cretaceous period which came to its close about 65 million years ago.
During the period of the cretaceous age, the sea levels were about 80 feet or 25 metres above current levels, and this was before the Tertiary period which closed about 2 million years ago, during which period all the mountain ranges such as the Himalayan mountains etc, were formed from the collision of the continental Tectonic plates, and apart from a few high land masses that were pushed up by earths internal pressures, those few small areas of land protruding above the surface of the seemingly endless ocean would have been insignificant.
The otherwise reasonably flat mountain less surfaces of the drifting continents, would have been under water, which is something that must be considered in view of the fact that in scripture we are dealing with a very, very condensed record of earths history. The only animals to survive would have been some birds, insects and small mammals, the ancestors of human beings, who were able to exist on small floating islands of debris until they could adapt to the watery environment and one day crawl out onto one of the few land islands that could sustain life.
The Biblical flood that occurred some 4 thousand years ago was simply representative of the much earlier flood that covered the entire earth and wiped out all land animals, which could not return to and adapt to the watery world of the long cretaceous period when the world was covered with water.
Tiapan I agree with you fully. It is in the interpretation. The Torah was interpreted and translated into the Koine Greek by count them 70 Rabbis around the time of Alexander. The word neanis is the Greek word for young woman. These 70 Rabbis, the Septuagint translators rendered it parthenos, which, of course, means virgin. This gives us a keen insight into Hellenistic Juduism understanding of scripture around ~300BC
The term virgin is required by the context. The birth of the son in Isaiah 7:14 is said to be a sign from God. I would not hold that an abundant everyday occurance is a sign from God.
Parthenos definition
Par·thenos (pär′t̸hə näs′
noun
a virgin: an epithet of several Greek goddesses, esp. of Athena
Etymology: < Gr parthenos
Isaiah uses the Hebrew Almah which specifically means Concealmentunmarried female. This, and not Virgin, is what Matthew had to translate into the Greek. The Greek neanis or rather neanias means, a young man or woman whether married or unmarried and is the reason why it was not used to translate the prophecy given through Isaiah, that an Unmarried female would conceive and bear a son etc.
Whereas the Greek Parthenos does mean an unmarried woman whether a widow, a virgin or even a prostitute, as long as she is unmarried, and the word Parthenos, which carries a basic meaning of girl, denotes virgin only by implication.
Parthenos, was often used in reference to non-virgins who had never been married. Homer uses it, and Homer was the standard textbook for learning Greek all throughout antiquity, so any writer of Greek, including Matthew, who transcribed Isaiahs words, (An unmarried female would conceive etc) to the best of his ability, was not implying in any way that Mary was still a virgin when he was forced to use the Greek 'parthentos,' being well aware of this words versatile and indefinite meaning.
Mary who was a virgin when told by Gabriel that she would become pregnant, was not still a virgin when she conceived in her womb, Jesus, the biological son of her half brother Joseph the son of Heli, which act, by the unmarried female, was Concealed in the shadow beneath the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
Danarch
Robot!
You may want to check your data. The landmass of the earth was not originally the Pangaea continent. At the end of the Paleozoic era, all of the land masses on earth came together to form Pangaea. This may help you to understand how there are mountains at the center of the current plates.
Thats just silly.
First of all check what I have written.
There was once a world ( wherein one massive continent, which was surrounded by water, was broken up into seven tectonic plates. The Jurassic age in which the 3 million odd year rule of the old upright walking reptile, “The Great Dinosaurs,” was brought to its finish by what is thought to have been a cataclysmic comet collision with the earth some 145 million years ago when the super continent of Pangaea began to break up, separating the continental tectonic plates and the overall sea level began to rise, which ushered in the cretaceous period which came to its close about 65 million years ago.
I have not got the time right now to enter into any lengthy debate as we are leaving in an hours time to collect a caravan from up north and wont be returning until late tomorrow, then we will illiminate all mountain ranges that have been created in the last 2 million years and flood the rest of the earth with 25 metres of water and see what remains above the water level of the earth during the cretaceous age. see you then. By the way, what were the names of the supposedly three major continents that came together to create the first known super continent of Pangea 245-208 million years ago?
Last edited:
Danarch
Robot!
I thought there were supposedly two continents that made up Pangaea. Laurasia and Gondwanaland. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Religious archaeologist have been hunting for the smoking gun of the biblical flood forever. Though i can't seem to imagine all of the land being covered by water, I hope it was all of those millions of years ago. And I hope that (I don't see how it could:sad
the bible was referring to this early "global flood".They will never find what they are looking for...muha.ha.ha.haaaaaaa:fight:
Religious archaeologist have been hunting for the smoking gun of the biblical flood forever. Though i can't seem to imagine all of the land being covered by water, I hope it was all of those millions of years ago. And I hope that (I don't see how it could:sad
They will never find what they are looking for...muha.ha.ha.haaaaaaa:fight:
Yes you need to be corrected. during the Carboniferous period, 362, not 361 or 363, but 362- 290 million years ago, there were three hypothetical continents of Gondwanaland, Angaraland and Laurentia, which are said to have dominated the earth, then during the Triassic period 245-208 million years ago, these three major hypothetical continents are said to have come together to create the hypothetical land mass of Pangea.
I used to have some good photos of Pangea, I think; but some men in black came around and I can't seem to remember what I've done with them. Damn, that flashing light hurts your eyes, don't it?
Last edited:
MdmSzdWhtGuy
Well-Known Member
I would have to disagree with you, disturbingly.
I grew up in Oklahoma, and currently make my home in Texas. There are a LOT of people who buy into a 6,000 year old Earth, critters and all. Some of them even manage to be deacons at Southern Baptist church's and science teachers at the same time. Amazing, and sad, but true.
Oh, and I wish you were right, don't get me wrong, but I don't think that the portion of YEC'ers out there is as small as some might imagine (or hope.)
B.
linwood
Well-Known Member
I have to second this.
I don`t know where most of y`all are living but I can walk a mile from my house in any direction before I find a Christian who isn`t a YEC.