Rapture Era
Active Member
Wrong again! But whats the use?
-
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!
The creator did it.
- Thread starter A REAL CHRISTIAN
- Start date
Rapture Era
Active Member
Not ignoring, here ya go . . . . . .I live in reality, where evidence exists. What I said is a fact. Evolution is the only viable theory in town, when it comes to explaining the biodiversification of life on Earth.
If you disagree though, again I will point out how easy it should be for you to provide one single piece of evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution. Nobody has been able to do it yet, in 150+ years. There's a Nobel Prize waiting for you, if you can. And please notice how you keep ignoring this point.
https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is circular reasoning. A logical fallacy. Do you have anything better than that, especially with all of the failed prophecies in the Bible?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You can't use a book based on the myths of the Bible to support the Bible. Once again this is circular reasoning.Funny how you use scripture to try and falsify the historical facts facts of scripture.
Amalek; Amalekite - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And that is a dishonest site. It is not a scientific source. You are shooting yourself in the foot again.
That claim has also been refuted.
Take your time and see if you can find any reliable sources.
ecco
Veteran Member
ecco said: ↑
How do you know the books "were inspired by Gods Holy Spirit"?There is no evidence to support that stance. None. You believe because you want to believe. You want to believe because that's how you were indoctrinated.
Whats how we know? All you did was link to scripture. Scripture that was written by humans just like you and me.
If "Peter" is saying that prophecies all came from god, then you should be able to point to one clear, unambiguous fulfilled Biblical prophecy. I know this is not the first time this has been requested. I know no one has yet posted a clear, unambiguous fulfilled Biblical prophecy.
Since you consider this to be one of the cornerstones of your belief, you should be able to post a bunch of them right off the top of your head without having to think about it too much.
ecco
Veteran Member
Post #1337
Funny how you use scripture to try and falsify the historical facts facts of scripture.
Amalek; Amalekite - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
I clicked on your link. I was taken to a site with an article attributed to an H. Porter.
- Apparently, you are admitting that your initial post was just all a copy/paste.
- We still are no closer to knowing who H. Porter is or what his credentials are.
Why is this so difficult for you?
ecco
Veteran Member
Wrong again! But whats the use?
What, specifically, is wrong?
Are you denying that you believe in the simplicity of Genesis?
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Are you denying that evolution and nature are far more complex than:
The Fifth Day: Fish and Birds
20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
That's OK. There are many people who prefer the simplicity of Genesis to the complexity of the real world.20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
gnostic
The Lost One
You are right.
There were no Chaldeans before the 1st millennium BCE, certainly none were living in Mesopotamia in the Bronze Age.
The Chaldeans migrated to the land between Ur and the Persian Gulf, and Ur has been landlockeded since around 12th to 10th century BCE, due to erosion of the Euphrates and Tigris caused new marshy land to form. eventually the land was dried enough to be settled around the 8th century BCE.
Originally Neolithic and Bronze Age Ur was a coastal city, but the coastline changed in the late 2nd millennium BCE. And during the Bronze Age, there were no land of the Chaldeans.
In the early 2nd millennium BCE, Babylon became the capital of the Babylonia (formerly Sumer), due to the Amorite dynasty. During this dynasty, these Amorite spoke a dialect of Akkadian, which modern historians referred to as Old Babylonian. The Middle Babylonian language started when Babylon and the rest of Babylonia were attacked by the invaders, known as the Kassites, and the Kassites settled in Babylonia, adopting the Babylonian language.
There were no Chaldeans during the Amorite and Kassites dynasties in Babylon.
Hence, the Genesis referring to “Chaldean” Ur, clearly demonstrates Genesis wasn’t written in the Bronze Age, because the author didn’t know that there were no Chaldeans before the 8th century BCE.
Last edited:
sooda
Veteran Member
gnostic
The Lost One
Thank you.. I have been getting beat up over it.
Chaldea means Marshland..
Originally, the Euphrates and Tigris were never joined into the single as the map currently shown.
During the Neolithic to the late Bronze Age, there were two separate mouths on the Persian Gulf, that of Euphrates and Tigris. As the coastline of PG receded, Tigris and Euphrates joined before it emptied its water from single mouth.
People have been living in the areas of Ur, since 6500 BCE, but it was never a city until around 3800 BCE. No one who know who these people are that live in this region before the 4th millennium BCE, but the potttery indicated it is the same style of that Uruk, before 4000 BCE, known as the Ubaid period (c 6500 - c 4000 BCE).
The Ubaid period denote the late Neolithic culture in southern Mesopotamia.
As a city, Ur was much younger than Uruk (Erech in Genesis). Both Uruk and Ur are much older than Genesis 10 & 11 seemed to think. The author of Genesis had no idea of prehistoric Uruk, a city that supposedly didn’t exist until Nimrod supposedly built it.
Nineveh also predated the Bronze Age.
So when it comes to history of Mesopotamia, the author was clueless not about the antiquity of Uruk and Ur, but he also didn’t know that the Chaldeans were late comers in Mesopotamia.
sooda
Veteran Member
Two rivers feeding into the Persian Gulf separately? Got it.. Genesis says that Cain named Uruk after his son Enoch.
After the birth of Enoch, the Hebrew text of Genesis 4:17 is unclear. Either Cain built a city and named it after Enoch, or else Enoch built a city.
Must be older than Genesis.
In Italian?????
gnostic
The Lost One
Yes, separately.
Ur had sat on the coast, with its own port, and it was situated at the mouth of Euphrates, and since the rivers don't intersect until further downstream AFTER Ur, then it would stand to reason that Tigris feed to the gulf separately.
Enoch?
I have not thought of Enoch being Erech/Uruk.
It is a bit of stretch.
In Genesis 10, it say Erech or Uruk being one of the cities founded by Nimrod, after the Flood.
Erech was never the name used in ancient Mesopotamia. Uruk was an Akkadian name for the city, but in the original Sumerian, the transliteration of cuneiform name would have been Unug. But whether it is Unug or Uruk, the cuneiform "spelling" were exactly the same, that's because the Akkadians didn't create their own cuneiform. So any historian who could read Babylonian or Assyrian, which were descendant languages of Akkadian, then they could read Sumerian, though most likely pronunciation would be different.
It sort of Chinese writings (traditional Chinese characters or Han characters) were adopted and being used in ancient Korea and Japan, when they became literate kingdoms. They didn't create their own writings until centuries later.
Anyway, I don't know if we can equate Enoch with Erech, especially since there very little in detail about Enoch son of Cain, nor do Genesis 4 provide any location to Enoch or to Nod. All it does say is that Cain went to the land of the Nod, which was east of Eden. Many places are east of Tigris and Euphrates, the two rivers that supposedly mark the boundaries of Eden.
This is why I think Genesis has a lot of craps, because it is very light on details.
Italian?
What do you mean?
joelr
Well-Known Member
No doubt that myths contain tremendous knowledge.
joelr
Well-Known Member
"Claims of prophethood have existed in many cultures throughout history, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in ancient Greek religion, Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, and many others"
While it fair enough to believe any prophet was actually a prophet that fact remains that it's just as possible that any NT stories were simply taken from OT stories and made specifically to appear like prophecy has been fulfilled. So it's not at all convincing to people outside any religion.
NT is basically:
Wisdom of Solomon 2 & 5
Isaiah 52-53
Daniel 9 & 12
Zechariah 3 & 6
all mention dying and rising messiah who atones for sins, judges wicked, goes to god, apocalypse happens.
The NT authors obviously wrote a narrative where these stories came true. They were Jewish/Greek writers who were highly skilled at writing mythology. All of the gospels were copied from Mark and each added more and more flare and myth to the narrative.
We know this because there are pages and pages of verbatim Greek among all gospels.
The historical reliability of the Gospels
"majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim."
Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia
joelr
Well-Known Member
Really? Trickery and deciet? Why would you support that?
Many of the signatures are from believers in non-related fields and the petition is misleading. That's so sketchy.
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism - RationalWiki
"The petition continues to be used in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns in an attempt to discredit evolution and bolster claims that intelligent design is scientifically valid by claiming that evolution lacks broad scientific support. However, the language of the statement is misleading. It frames the argument in a way that anyone could agree with it. So long as they don't know the Discovery Institute's true motivations (which is to undermine evolution using deceit and trickery, not to show any kind of genuine fallibility with it), anyone who is open to the idea of scientific inquiry would agree that they should be skeptical of everything, including evolution. If only the writers of the statement (i.e. creationists) were skeptical of their own ideas, which they clearly aren't.
The petition is considered a fallacious Appeal to authority, whereby the creationists at the Discovery Institute are attempting to prove that there is a dissent from "Darwinism" by finding a few creationist scientists to support the statement. The roughly 700 dissenters who originally signed the petition would have represented about 0.063% of the estimated 1,108,100 biological and geological scientists in the US in 1999, except, of course, that three-quarters of the signatories had no academic background in biology.[5][6] (The roughly 150 biologist Darwin Dissenters would hence represent about 0.013% of the US biologists that existed in 1999.) As of 2006, the list was expanded to include non-US scientists. However, the list nonetheless represents less than 0.03% of all research scientists in the world.[7] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, the figures indicate the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.
Since scientific principles are built on publications in peer-reviewed journals, discussion in open forums, and finally through consensus, the use of a petition should be considered the last resort of a pseudoscience rather than a legitimate scientific dissent from the prevailing consensus.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Right. Children do not have a choice. Their need to follow adults is a necessary instinct, instilled by Evolution for all mammals. This instinct is essential for survival. However, I don't see any mortal danger associated with gaining knowledge from the Tree of Knowledge. Of course this begs the question, why was the Tree of Knowledge(good and evil) and the Tree of Life(immortality) placed in the Garden at all? To any rational person, this would be the ultimate temptation. But, for two immature clueless children being manipulated by another God, they really never had a chance. If you ask a child not to look at certain explicit materials on the internet, what do you think the outcome would be? But is the threat of death justifiable? Again, why should Adam and Eve NOT have access to the knowledge of good and evil? What if Satan had not interfered? Why didn't God punish Satan and not Adam and Eve? What was God afraid would happen? Why the need for an elaborate sequence of prophecies?
Yes the old "post hoc" fallacy. It ranks up there with ignorance, and willful ignorance. "If God wanted us to know, He would have told us". Completely self-serving gibberish. Just because Y follows X, doesn't mean that Y is directly caused by X. It is only an inference to a fallacious assumption. Just more terrible self-serving logic to mesmerize the choir, and give the appearance of credibility to nonsense.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Satan didn't interfere.
"Certain concepts, such as the serpent being identified as Satan, Eve being a sexual temptation, or Adam's first wife being Lilith, come from literary works found in various Jewish apocrypha, but they are not found anywhere in the Book of Genesis or the Torah itself.[citation needed] Writings dealing with these subjects are extant literature in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic, extending back to ancient Jewish thought. The concepts are not part of Rabbinic Judaism,[citation needed] but they did influence Christian theology, and this marks a radical split between the two religions. Some of the oldest Jewish portions of apocrypha are called Primary Adam Literature where some works became Christianized. Examples of Christianized works are Life of Adam and Eve, Conflict of Adam and Eve with Satan[33] and an original Syriac work entitled Cave of Treasures[34] which has close affinities to the Conflict as noted by August Dillmann." Wiki/Adam Eve
Satan came later after the Persian invasion and was retconned into the story.
Wiki on Satan:
"During the intertestamental period, possibly due to influence from the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, the satan developed into a malevolent entity with abhorrent qualities in dualistic opposition to God."
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Just more intellectual dishonesty and religious desperation. The question asked of these scientists was,
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”.
All scientists are skeptical of all claims, and all scientist would encourage all evidence to be examined. To say the opposite would be dishonest. Creationists only want to spin these results as, "Scientific Dissent from Darwinism". The implication being, that scientists disagree with the Theory of Evolution, because they believe the complexities of life do not support random mutation and natural selection. This of course is not true. It is just another non-sequitur post hoc fallacy, intended to imply that even scientist disagree with Evolution.
Even if your claims was true, find me 500 scientists that claim "God did it all". Find me 500 scientist that claim Evolution is false, or can falsify it. I didn't think so. Just more deceit and dishonesty, to advance your message at any cost, even the truth.
Truly Enlightened
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a lot of obfuscated foreign word salad to me. That is, where everything can be correct, and everything can be false. Whether it was the Devil, Satan, a talking snake, or just a weird dream by Eve, their innocence alone did not warrant death or expulsion, or the creation of the Jesus narrative. Especially by an all-knowing, all-powerful God. But I am now more informed that another myth was added later to an earlier myth.