littleoldme
Member
i don't think corner is how i would put it, what he does it rely on logical circular fallacies...
-
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!
Theory....again
- Thread starter Thief
- Start date
i don't think corner is how i would put it, what he does it rely on logical circular fallacies...
averageJOE
zombie
That dude is a joke. He will avoid questions by trying to make jokes to get people to like him while using a constant witty tone. And instead of supplying evidence, like most muslims, will just start with "the Koran! the Koran!", all while talking a mile a minute.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
And which item in particular?
Science?
I like science.
Takes you right up to the singularity.
When you look at it.....what explanation have you got?
Scimitar
Eschatologist
God created everything in pairs, so we may know HIS essence is singular.
And when you go back to the origin of the universe - you will find something termed "the singularity principle".
A clue, to our origin.
Science is actually filling in the blanks which God has placed thru scripture. Science is still young, still trying to catch up - it doesn't have all the answers - but the answers it does have, support Abrahamic faith.
for example - proponents of Abrahamic faiths who only speak English, run with the "God created the earth and the heavens in 6 days (6X24 hour periods).... they ran with the Greek translation of the hebrew word YOM.
The word YOM, has two meanings, dependant on the context it is used in.
1) it means period or age
2) it means day
In context, the actual understanding of genesis should be "God created the earth and the heavens in 6 ages" - and that does not contradict with scientific explanations at all.
And there's more but dinner is ready.
Hows that for a quick explanation bud?
And when you go back to the origin of the universe - you will find something termed "the singularity principle".
A clue, to our origin.
Science is actually filling in the blanks which God has placed thru scripture. Science is still young, still trying to catch up - it doesn't have all the answers - but the answers it does have, support Abrahamic faith.
for example - proponents of Abrahamic faiths who only speak English, run with the "God created the earth and the heavens in 6 days (6X24 hour periods).... they ran with the Greek translation of the hebrew word YOM.
The word YOM, has two meanings, dependant on the context it is used in.
1) it means period or age
2) it means day
In context, the actual understanding of genesis should be "God created the earth and the heavens in 6 ages" - and that does not contradict with scientific explanations at all.
And there's more but dinner is ready.
Hows that for a quick explanation bud?
Tepid rerun.
Speaking of context …
וַיְהִי עֶרֶב וַיְהִי בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד:
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Must've been a long morning.
Explanation for what?
Scimitar
Eschatologist
Oh no you didn't
haha. was waiting for someone to fall for that bait.
Christian explanation of 6 days of creation:
Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing: that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
The age of the earth and the universe is no longer disputed among most scientists. Science tells us the earth is ~4.5 x 109 years old. The universe is ~14 x 109 years old. There have been several Christian scientists who have attempted to propose theories and find "scientific" evidence that the earth is only 6,000 years old. All "evidence" for a recent creation of the earth is flawed in some way (for a discussion of this topic, see Dr. Hugh Ross' book, A Matter of Days).
Hebrew Words
Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.
Do all the instances of "morning" and evening" refer to a literal period of time? Here is an example from Moses:
In the morning it [grass] flourishes, and sprouts anew; Toward evening it fades, and withers away. (Psalm 90:6)
Holman QuickSource Guide to Understanding CreationThis verse refers to the life cycle of grass (compared to the short life span of humans). Obviously, the grass does not grow up in one morning and die by the same evening. The period of time refers to its birth (morning) and its death (evening) at least several weeks (if not months) later.
The first thing one notices when looking at Genesis 1 is the unusual construction surrounding the words morning and evening together with day. This combination is very rare, occurring only ten times in the Old Testament, six of which, of course, are in the Genesis creation account. The remaining four verses (NASB) are listed below:
"This is the offering which Aaron and his sons are to present to the LORD on the day when he is anointed; the tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half of it in the evening." (Leviticus 6:20)
Now on the day that the tabernacle was erected the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony, and in the evening it was like the appearance of fire over the tabernacle, until morning. (Numbers 9:15)
"For seven days no leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory, and none of the flesh which you sacrifice on the evening of the first day shall remain overnight until morning." (Deuteronomy 16:4)
"And the vision of the evenings and mornings which has been told is true; but keep the vision secret, for it pertains to many days in the future." (Daniel 8:26)
The first three verses obviously refer to 24 hour days, since this is readily apparent from the context. The fourth one refers to many evenings and mornings, which "pertains to many days in the future." This verse actually refers to events that are yet to happen, which is 3000 years of days from when it was originally written. One could easily say that these mornings and evenings represent thousands of years.
However, none of these verses have the form which is seen in the Genesis account. Let's look at the form of these "evenings and mornings:"
And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. (Genesis 1:5)
And God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Genesis 1:8)
And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. (Genesis 1:13)
And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. (Genesis 1:19)
And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. (Genesis 1:23)
And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. (Genesis 1:31)
The actual number of words in Hebrew is much fewer than that of the English translations. The words "and there was" are not in the Hebrew, but added to make the English flow better. The actual translation is "evening and morning 'n' day." There is no way to discern from the context that the text is referring to 24 hour days.
How would God have changed the text if He intended it to indicate 24 hour days? If God were to have created in 24 hour days, I would have expected the Genesis text to have begun with a statement to the effect that "God did 'x' in the morning" and "God did 'y' in the evening," as opposed to the very unusual construction of telling all God did and then ending with both evening and morning side by side at the end of the "day." So, the order indicates the end (evening) of one day is followed by the dawning (morning) of the next day. In addition, one would expect that if God chose to create the world in a few days He would have indicated it was all created in a few days instead of one day (Genesis 2:4). This verse indicates to me that the Genesis days are other than 12 or 24 hour periods of time.
more to follow
Scimitar
Eschatologist
Scripture Declares the Days to be Long
Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.
Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4).
The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, trees and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.
The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. When Adam woke up, he used the Hebrew word pa‛ămâh, which means "at long last." If Adam has only needed to wait a few hours, it is unlikely he would have used this Hebrew word. The context suggests that Adam had to wait months to years before Eve was created. So, it is very unlikely all of this could have taken place in a 24 hour period of time, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.
The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).
Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long
The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology. Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.
All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.
Appearance of Age
If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character. The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness. God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie.
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.
Appearance of Age Rebuttals
Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
Godand Science.org^
more to come
Specific biblical examples of evidence for long creation days include:
The "Day of the Lord" refers to a seven year period of time.
Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven."
The seventh day of Genesis is not closed. In all other days, "there is the evening and the morning, the n day."
In the book of Hebrews, the author tells us to labor to enter into God's seventh day of rest. By any calculation, God's seventh day of rest has been at least 6,000 years long:
For He has thus said somewhere concerning the seventh day, "And God rested on the seventh day from all His works"... Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:4-11)
The psalmist (Moses, the author of Genesis) says "For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:4).
The apostle Peter tells us with God "A thousand years is as one day" (2 Peter 3:8).
The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, trees and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it. Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.
The events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. When Adam woke up, he used the Hebrew word pa‛ămâh, which means "at long last." If Adam has only needed to wait a few hours, it is unlikely he would have used this Hebrew word. The context suggests that Adam had to wait months to years before Eve was created. So, it is very unlikely all of this could have taken place in a 24 hour period of time, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.
The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9, 1 Chronicles 16:15, Psalm 105:8). Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology).
Early Church Fathers Believed the Creation Days were Long
The belief that creation days are long periods of time is not just a recent interpretation of the scriptures, but was prevalent since the first century. Dr. Ross has published a book entitled Creation and Time, which documents in detail what first century Jewish scholars and the early Christian church fathers said regarding their interpretation of creation chronology. Jewish scholars include Philo and Josephus, while Christian fathers include Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus (through writings of Ambrose), Clement, Origen, Lactantius, Victorinus, Methodius, Augustine, Eusebius, Basil, and Ambrose. Among this group, nearly all acknowledged the likelihood that the creation days were longer than 24 hours. The evidence presented in Creation and Time is both overwhelming and well documented (all references are given). You can read and/or download translations of the actual text of all of the early church fathers at Wheaton College's server. The collection consists of nearly forty files, averaging ~2 mb each. Alternatively, these writings can be obtained on CD from Logos Research.
All of this biblical and historical evidence has led us to conclude that the days of Genesis 1 are not literal 24 hour days, but long periods of time during which God chose to create different species of life.
Appearance of Age
If God had created the universe in an instant, there would be no evidence from nature that He created it. The Bible states God has shown himself to all men through His creation so that men are without excuse in rejecting God. In addition, the universe declares God's glory, which is a sum of God's innate and unchangeable character. The Bible also states the universe declares God's righteousness. God's righteousness prevents Him from sinning. The scriptures say God cannot lie.
Therefore, from the Bible, we conclude that God does not lie or deceive, either from His word or from His record of nature. The heavens declare the universe to be at least 10 billion years old. In addition, we have the ability to see galaxies in the universe which are billions of light years away. If one claims the universe is 6,000 years old, he must state that God created the light from these distant galaxies in transit less than 6,000 light years from the earth. There are signs that the light has indeed been in transit for very long periods of time and was not somehow created in space relatively recently. Frequencies of known spectral lines show spreading or broadening which would occur after long travel times through space containing dust and debris. Since this light appears to be very old and to have originated from a point billions of light years away, if the universe is actually 6,000 years old, the heavens must be declaring a lie, an apparently old universe which is actually very young.
Let me give one example. For now let us assume the universe is 6 to 10 thousand years old and God created the light-beams already in place. Say we are watching a star in our telescope which is two million light years away, and we notice that it explodes (yes, supernova explosions have been observed). That means the light reaching us now is carrying the information recording this distant happening. Now trace this part of the light beam backwards in time along the path of the light beam. By the time you get back to the time of creation (6 to 10 thousand years ago) you have reached a point which is less than 1 percent of the distance to the star. This would mean that the "explosion" part of the light-beam began its journey from here - and not from the star! Thus, the information recording this explosion had to be "built-in" to the light beam, so what we see as having happened to that star may never have happened at all. The idea that observation of things further than around 10,000 light-years away is not necessarily linked to physical reality would be unsettling from both a scientific and theological viewpoint. I cannot accept a God who lies by creating deceptions.
Appearance of Age Rebuttals
Many have asked the following question: Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him. This would require some special agency or being, or God could have made Adam a very special baby who did not require special care. Although God could have done any of these things, we believe God operates according to the principle of simplicity. Thus, He simply created the first man full-sized. However, Adam's body did not necessarily have signs of age. Size by itself is not an indication of age except perhaps to tell that the person is not a child. If a doctor examines an adult to determine age he might look at skin condition, liver spot progression, hair, teeth, cholesterol level, metabolism, scars, etc. I believe that Adam's body had none of these signs of age. God created Adam sinless, with no spiritual deterioration, and I believe He also created Adam with a perfect body, with no physical deterioration. Thus I do not believe Adam had an "apparent age."
Other arguments often used to support the appearance of age argument is the wine that Jesus made from water. It was the best wine, implying that it was aged. However, the wine may or may not have had the chemical components of aged wine.
Ultimately, the downfall of the appearance of age argument is that the Bible never supports this idea with regard to the creation. The Bible explains the miracles of God and tells us when things were made as if they were old (like the wine that Jesus made from water). In contrast, there is not one verse in the Bible that suggests that God made the Earth look older than it actually is.
Godand Science.org^
more to come
Scimitar
Eschatologist
Islamic understanding of the 6 days of creation:
Did you know that the "Relativity of Time" was announced over 1400 yrs ago
Throughout history, time was assumed to apply equally in every imaginable spot in the universe and in every medium. If we consider this conception, we can see the radical change that the above verses brought. The Quran said that, according to circumstances, the day concept might equal even up to fifty thousand years. These verses which must have encountered objections have been elucidated in the twentieth century and shed light on important truths.
The theory of relativity is Einsteins best known discovery. However, many people whose interests are not in any way related to physics are at a loss to understand what this theory signifies. The Quran had already touched on these facts 1400 years ago. Einsteins theory of relativity has two main divisions, namely the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity.
According to Einstein, time would pass more slowly for somebody driving a vehicle at a speed close to the velocity of light. In a medium in which an inhabitant of the earth passes one hundred days, it may take a person fifty days to displace at a speed nearing the propagation speed of light. This finding is the most interesting fact of the relativity theory. Time slows down in direct proportion with speed. Time is therefore a relative conception, as indicated in the Quran. Hours differ and days are conceived differently according to the medium, place and speed involved.
The general theory of relativity deals with gravitational fields and tries to demonstrate that time is slower in the fields of greater gravitation. A man walking on the surface of the sun will see that his clock runs more slowly, as do the biological and anatomical functions and all the motions in terms of his atoms. Recent experiments have corroborated this fact. One of these experiments was conducted in the British National Institute of Physics. John Laverty, researcher, synchronized two clocks indicating the exact time (two clocks of optimum perfection; error of precision in the course of a space of time of 300,000 years would be not more than 1 second). One of these clocks was kept at a laboratory in London; the other was taken aboard an airplane shuttling between London and China. The high altitude at which the aircraft flies is subject to a lower gravitational force. In other words, time was expected to pass at a faster rate aboard a plane in conformity with the general relativity theory. There is not so great a difference in terms of gravity between someone treading upon the earth and someone flying in the air. This difference could only be established by a precision instrument. It was established that the clock aboard the aircraft had a greater speed, one per fifty five billion seconds. This experiment is one of the proofs of the relativity of time. According to the prevailing prejudice, there should not be any difference between the two clocks. This supports the dispelling of prejudices as foreseen in the Quran. Had it been possible to make this experiment on a planet with greater gravitational force, there would be no need for precision instruments to measure the difference, since normal watches could do the job.
THE USE OF THE WORD DAY IN THE QURAN
V4- To Him ascend the angels and the spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
70-The Heights, V4 [70 SURAh AL-MAARIJ, V 4]
V5- He regulates all affairs from the heaven to the earth. Then they ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is a thousand years as you count.
32-The Prostration, V5 [032 SURAH AS-SAJDAH, V5]
Verse 5 of the sura The Prostration and Verse 4 of the sura The Heights not only point to the relativity of time, but give also a clear meaning of the Arabic word yawm (which translates to the word - "day or period or age, dependant on context") that denotes not only the space of time of one day - which comprises 24 hours - but also a certain period of time. This makes it easier to understand the six yawms mentioned in the Quran (See: 7-The Purgatory, 54; 11-Hud, 7; 10- Jonah, 3; 25-The Distinguisher, 59; 32-The Prostration, 4; 57-Iron, 4.) Before the creation of the universe and the world there was no notion of day, a period of 24 hours. Therefore, the six yawms must be understood as six periods or ages, and not 6X24hours.
A NOTE TO CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ABOUT "TIME"
This gives a clue to the Jews and Christians for the interpretation of the Biblical account according to which the world was created in six days. Findings in the domain of space physics show that the universe and our world passed through many stages, from a gaseous state to galaxies, to the formation of the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, and of waters and metals. The fact that the Quran refers to the stages that the process of creation went through is also better understood by modern cosmology.
If we remember the stories of creation of ancient Egypt, China and India, we encounter wild fancies such as a universe standing on a tortoise or as an eternally existing entity. None of the past civilizations had made any reference to the stages of this evolution. This message of the Quran contributes to a correct interpretation of Biblical exegeses of the concept of day. The message in the Bible that reads: And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. (Genesis 2, 2) was thus corrected, as fatigue was certainly out of the question for God.
V38- We created the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them in six days, and no fatigue touched us.
50-Qaf, V38 [50-Sura Qaf, V38]
CONTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY
Einstein postulated that the concept of time was relative. For Kant time was an innate function of reason. He contended that the perception of time was an a priori category. Einsteins physics was henceforth the science that integrated time and space, so that, instead of space we had now space-time.
There is something that must not escape attention, however: the perception of time is achieved by the intellect. Since according to our estimation, just as the special relativity theory establishes that velocity makes time relative and the general relativity theory postulates that gravity makes time relative, one should elaborate on the intellects relativity which posits that the intellects perception manner would render the relative perception of time. Like a key that fits the lock, our intellect also has the capacity of perceiving time and the universe. That is (1) time exists in the universe, (2) and the intellect is created with a priori abilities to perceive time and the universe. The two processes are coexistent, just like the coexistence of the world seen by us and the eyes.
It seems to us only fair to add the intellects perception factor to Einsteins concepts relating velocity and gravity and time. Comprehension of times relativity will contribute to a better understanding of the Quran. For instance, it is said in the Quran that the dead will think when resurrected that their span on the earth had been very brief. Once times relativity has been conceived, the puzzling question of the time to elapse from ones death till the Day of Judgement will be clear. Such questions for the inquisitive mind that sees the time upon the earth as the only valid time regardless of the attending circumstances will find their answer, once times relativity is understood. Given the fact that a deceased person is outside the confines of the temporal dimensions of the earth, the time to elapse after his death, regardless of its actual duration, would be of no consequence.
V45- On the day when He gathers them, it will appear to them as if they had tarried an hour of a day...
10-Jonah, V45 [010 SURAH YUNUS, V45]
V112- He said: How many years did you stay on earth?
V113- They said: We stayed a day or part of a day, ask those who account.
23-The Believers, V112-V113 [23 SURAH AL-MOMINOON, V112-V113]
ANYONE AMONG US TIRED OF WAITING FOR EONS?
The reason why the fifteen billion years that elapsed from the moment the universe was created until the creation of man was made clear by times relativity. In a different context, fifteen billion years may be conceived as one minute or even less. The length of its duration depends on our perception and standpoint.
Scientists, based on the most recent and accurate calculations, assert that approximately fifteen billion years have elapsed since the creation of the universe until this very moment. Is there anyone who feels tired of waiting for eons? The evident answer being in the negative, the time the departed will have to wait as from their decease until resurrection will not cause anxiety in them. Comprehension of times relativity renders possible the solution of many problems believed to be beyond the grasp of the intellect.
more to follow
Did you know that the "Relativity of Time" was announced over 1400 yrs ago
Throughout history, time was assumed to apply equally in every imaginable spot in the universe and in every medium. If we consider this conception, we can see the radical change that the above verses brought. The Quran said that, according to circumstances, the day concept might equal even up to fifty thousand years. These verses which must have encountered objections have been elucidated in the twentieth century and shed light on important truths.
The theory of relativity is Einsteins best known discovery. However, many people whose interests are not in any way related to physics are at a loss to understand what this theory signifies. The Quran had already touched on these facts 1400 years ago. Einsteins theory of relativity has two main divisions, namely the special theory of relativity and the general theory of relativity.
According to Einstein, time would pass more slowly for somebody driving a vehicle at a speed close to the velocity of light. In a medium in which an inhabitant of the earth passes one hundred days, it may take a person fifty days to displace at a speed nearing the propagation speed of light. This finding is the most interesting fact of the relativity theory. Time slows down in direct proportion with speed. Time is therefore a relative conception, as indicated in the Quran. Hours differ and days are conceived differently according to the medium, place and speed involved.
The general theory of relativity deals with gravitational fields and tries to demonstrate that time is slower in the fields of greater gravitation. A man walking on the surface of the sun will see that his clock runs more slowly, as do the biological and anatomical functions and all the motions in terms of his atoms. Recent experiments have corroborated this fact. One of these experiments was conducted in the British National Institute of Physics. John Laverty, researcher, synchronized two clocks indicating the exact time (two clocks of optimum perfection; error of precision in the course of a space of time of 300,000 years would be not more than 1 second). One of these clocks was kept at a laboratory in London; the other was taken aboard an airplane shuttling between London and China. The high altitude at which the aircraft flies is subject to a lower gravitational force. In other words, time was expected to pass at a faster rate aboard a plane in conformity with the general relativity theory. There is not so great a difference in terms of gravity between someone treading upon the earth and someone flying in the air. This difference could only be established by a precision instrument. It was established that the clock aboard the aircraft had a greater speed, one per fifty five billion seconds. This experiment is one of the proofs of the relativity of time. According to the prevailing prejudice, there should not be any difference between the two clocks. This supports the dispelling of prejudices as foreseen in the Quran. Had it been possible to make this experiment on a planet with greater gravitational force, there would be no need for precision instruments to measure the difference, since normal watches could do the job.
THE USE OF THE WORD DAY IN THE QURAN
V4- To Him ascend the angels and the spirit in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
70-The Heights, V4 [70 SURAh AL-MAARIJ, V 4]
V5- He regulates all affairs from the heaven to the earth. Then they ascend to Him in a day, the measure of which is a thousand years as you count.
32-The Prostration, V5 [032 SURAH AS-SAJDAH, V5]
Verse 5 of the sura The Prostration and Verse 4 of the sura The Heights not only point to the relativity of time, but give also a clear meaning of the Arabic word yawm (which translates to the word - "day or period or age, dependant on context") that denotes not only the space of time of one day - which comprises 24 hours - but also a certain period of time. This makes it easier to understand the six yawms mentioned in the Quran (See: 7-The Purgatory, 54; 11-Hud, 7; 10- Jonah, 3; 25-The Distinguisher, 59; 32-The Prostration, 4; 57-Iron, 4.) Before the creation of the universe and the world there was no notion of day, a period of 24 hours. Therefore, the six yawms must be understood as six periods or ages, and not 6X24hours.
A NOTE TO CHRISTIANS AND JEWS ABOUT "TIME"
This gives a clue to the Jews and Christians for the interpretation of the Biblical account according to which the world was created in six days. Findings in the domain of space physics show that the universe and our world passed through many stages, from a gaseous state to galaxies, to the formation of the atmosphere surrounding the Earth, and of waters and metals. The fact that the Quran refers to the stages that the process of creation went through is also better understood by modern cosmology.
If we remember the stories of creation of ancient Egypt, China and India, we encounter wild fancies such as a universe standing on a tortoise or as an eternally existing entity. None of the past civilizations had made any reference to the stages of this evolution. This message of the Quran contributes to a correct interpretation of Biblical exegeses of the concept of day. The message in the Bible that reads: And on the seventh day God finished His work that He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work that He had done. (Genesis 2, 2) was thus corrected, as fatigue was certainly out of the question for God.
V38- We created the heavens and the earth, and all that lies between them in six days, and no fatigue touched us.
50-Qaf, V38 [50-Sura Qaf, V38]
CONTRIBUTION OF THE RELATIVITY THEORY
Einstein postulated that the concept of time was relative. For Kant time was an innate function of reason. He contended that the perception of time was an a priori category. Einsteins physics was henceforth the science that integrated time and space, so that, instead of space we had now space-time.
There is something that must not escape attention, however: the perception of time is achieved by the intellect. Since according to our estimation, just as the special relativity theory establishes that velocity makes time relative and the general relativity theory postulates that gravity makes time relative, one should elaborate on the intellects relativity which posits that the intellects perception manner would render the relative perception of time. Like a key that fits the lock, our intellect also has the capacity of perceiving time and the universe. That is (1) time exists in the universe, (2) and the intellect is created with a priori abilities to perceive time and the universe. The two processes are coexistent, just like the coexistence of the world seen by us and the eyes.
It seems to us only fair to add the intellects perception factor to Einsteins concepts relating velocity and gravity and time. Comprehension of times relativity will contribute to a better understanding of the Quran. For instance, it is said in the Quran that the dead will think when resurrected that their span on the earth had been very brief. Once times relativity has been conceived, the puzzling question of the time to elapse from ones death till the Day of Judgement will be clear. Such questions for the inquisitive mind that sees the time upon the earth as the only valid time regardless of the attending circumstances will find their answer, once times relativity is understood. Given the fact that a deceased person is outside the confines of the temporal dimensions of the earth, the time to elapse after his death, regardless of its actual duration, would be of no consequence.
V45- On the day when He gathers them, it will appear to them as if they had tarried an hour of a day...
10-Jonah, V45 [010 SURAH YUNUS, V45]
V112- He said: How many years did you stay on earth?
V113- They said: We stayed a day or part of a day, ask those who account.
23-The Believers, V112-V113 [23 SURAH AL-MOMINOON, V112-V113]
ANYONE AMONG US TIRED OF WAITING FOR EONS?
The reason why the fifteen billion years that elapsed from the moment the universe was created until the creation of man was made clear by times relativity. In a different context, fifteen billion years may be conceived as one minute or even less. The length of its duration depends on our perception and standpoint.
Scientists, based on the most recent and accurate calculations, assert that approximately fifteen billion years have elapsed since the creation of the universe until this very moment. Is there anyone who feels tired of waiting for eons? The evident answer being in the negative, the time the departed will have to wait as from their decease until resurrection will not cause anxiety in them. Comprehension of times relativity renders possible the solution of many problems believed to be beyond the grasp of the intellect.
more to follow
Scimitar
Eschatologist
PROOF FROM NECESSARY VERSUS POSSIBLE BEING
A host of celebrated philosophers like Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Farabi, Taftazani and Jurjani had recourse to this argument in proving Gods existence. They asserted that all the possible creatures upon the earth could not exist by themselves as they owed their existence to a Creator. The created requires a Creator while God, the Self-Existent (whose existence is a necessity) does not need a creator. The created is a product of causality; their existence or non-existence are within the confines of possibility. To think of the non-existence of the existent poses no contradiction. However, this does not hold true for the Self-Existing, God; otherwise the contradiction would be evident. Philosophers like Leibniz argued in like manner the principle of Sufficient Reason. According to him, the universe is made of possible beings. The universe itself is a possibility. If we try to trace back the chain of causality (which is impossible) until the infinite this would not explain the universe. Yes, the universe is a possibility but requires a Sufficient Reason outside its confines. To allege that the reasons may be traced back to the infinite would mean that we were created after eternity. But since eternity is endless there would be no question of any lapse of time after eternity; if there has been a chain of causality, it would necessarily follow that it had had an end. If there had been a chain of causality that came to an end, it would prove the existence of a first cause. There may be persons who would find the existence of a first cause difficult to grasp. On the other hand, an eternal chain of causes would be a self-contradiction.
Absurd and incomprehensible are not the same thing. For instance, the structure of a space-shuttle may be incomprehensible for us, but we cannot deny its existence. The number 5 cannot be higher than the number 10; that is absurd. As the contrary is absurd (that the eternal chain of causes has led to this point), the existence of a first cause is a necessity (although there are those who contend that this argument is beyond comprehension).
What I propose to do is to reformulate the approaches of a series of thinkers from Avicenna to Leibniz in the light of scientific data obtained in the twentieth century in a richer and more scientific context. Findings related to the relativity theory may be used for this end. That the perfect use of time existing only in relative terms in the universe, in the formation of the universal targets, can only be grasped by the existence of an Absolute and Indispensable Regulator, that the existence of time can only be explained in a satisfactory way by the Cause behind the creation of time, that the harmony existing between time and intellect can be imagined to exist by the presence of a Regulator outside the confines of time and intellect and that even time is a possibility depending on a Creator should be integrated for use with the explanation of the proof from necessary versus possible beings.
V81- ]And He shows you His signs: Then which of the signs of God will you deny?
40-The Believer, V81[040 SURE GAFIR, V81]
more to follow:
A host of celebrated philosophers like Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Farabi, Taftazani and Jurjani had recourse to this argument in proving Gods existence. They asserted that all the possible creatures upon the earth could not exist by themselves as they owed their existence to a Creator. The created requires a Creator while God, the Self-Existent (whose existence is a necessity) does not need a creator. The created is a product of causality; their existence or non-existence are within the confines of possibility. To think of the non-existence of the existent poses no contradiction. However, this does not hold true for the Self-Existing, God; otherwise the contradiction would be evident. Philosophers like Leibniz argued in like manner the principle of Sufficient Reason. According to him, the universe is made of possible beings. The universe itself is a possibility. If we try to trace back the chain of causality (which is impossible) until the infinite this would not explain the universe. Yes, the universe is a possibility but requires a Sufficient Reason outside its confines. To allege that the reasons may be traced back to the infinite would mean that we were created after eternity. But since eternity is endless there would be no question of any lapse of time after eternity; if there has been a chain of causality, it would necessarily follow that it had had an end. If there had been a chain of causality that came to an end, it would prove the existence of a first cause. There may be persons who would find the existence of a first cause difficult to grasp. On the other hand, an eternal chain of causes would be a self-contradiction.
Absurd and incomprehensible are not the same thing. For instance, the structure of a space-shuttle may be incomprehensible for us, but we cannot deny its existence. The number 5 cannot be higher than the number 10; that is absurd. As the contrary is absurd (that the eternal chain of causes has led to this point), the existence of a first cause is a necessity (although there are those who contend that this argument is beyond comprehension).
What I propose to do is to reformulate the approaches of a series of thinkers from Avicenna to Leibniz in the light of scientific data obtained in the twentieth century in a richer and more scientific context. Findings related to the relativity theory may be used for this end. That the perfect use of time existing only in relative terms in the universe, in the formation of the universal targets, can only be grasped by the existence of an Absolute and Indispensable Regulator, that the existence of time can only be explained in a satisfactory way by the Cause behind the creation of time, that the harmony existing between time and intellect can be imagined to exist by the presence of a Regulator outside the confines of time and intellect and that even time is a possibility depending on a Creator should be integrated for use with the explanation of the proof from necessary versus possible beings.
V81- ]And He shows you His signs: Then which of the signs of God will you deny?
40-The Believer, V81[040 SURE GAFIR, V81]
more to follow:
Scimitar
Eschatologist
A computer search of the possible Hebrew wordings that could number yom, using second gave the results
listed below. As listed, the entire Hebrew word with attached prefixes is translated enclosed in quotation marks and
represents successive words:
yom second one verse, Genesis 1:8
in yom the second 8 times [ This is Archers hayyom hasseni.]
and in yom the second 3 times
Searching the KJV Old Testament for second day, I found 15 verses. Two of the 15 verses do not have the Hebrew
word yom; the English word day appears in italics. Another verse, 1 Samuel 20:34, has an intervening word and
reads in yom of the month the second.
When the search was extended to include numbering by two through six, the Hebrew words appear 56 times as
described by both 2) and 3) above. 1 Chronicles 26:17 is an exception which uses to yom four. Genesis 1:31
is an exception reading yom the sixth, a combination which appears only in this verse. Of the six creative
times only Genesis 1:31 prefixes the number; the word yom remains unprefixed.
The above pattern of prefixing both the ordinal number and the word yom also, almost always, describes the
numbering of yom by the seventh, (44 times) and the eighth (17 times). The exceptions being and yom
the seventh which appears two times, and yom the seventh which appears one time in Genesis 2:3. The
Hebrew pattern is not always visible in English translation. For example, the Hebrew of Exodus 20:11 reads
on yom the seventh, but some translations read the seventh day omitting the prefix on. The NAS, NIV,
and many recent translations now more correctly translate and rested on the seventh day.
By consulting the Hebrew text of the Bible it can be established that:
A. The repeated pattern of the numbering of the creative times
in Genesis One is unique. Each of the
Hebrew numberings expressed by yom + number used in Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19,
Genesis 1:23, and Genesis 1:31, appear only one time in the Bible.
B. The pattern of the numbering of
the yom in other verses of the Bible almost always
includes both of procedures (2) and (3) above for numbers two through six.
These results confirm Geislers: Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all
numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days.
These results and the uniform absence of the definite article the prefixing the Hebrew word yom,
confirms the basis of Archers:
. . . none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text;
the translations the first day, the second day, etc., are in error.
3 of 3
3 of 3
Heb Genesis 22:4 in yom the third . . .
NIVGenesis 22:4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
The reader of the Hebrew text sees the first two words as in yom the third . . . .
The reader of the English translation sees two words, third day, not in yom the third.
This difference in perception also occurs for Genesis 1:13:
Heb Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning yom third.
NIV Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.
The Hebrew reader knows that the in yom the third of Genesis 22:4
differs from the Hebrew yom third of Genesis 1:13.
A person reasoning on the basis of English translations can (erroneously) conclude that the numbering third day
of Genesis 22:4 is equivalent to the yom third of Genesis 1:13 because:
1) The English reader does not know that the third of the NIV Genesis 1:13 is third in the Hebrew,
and does not know that the the in NIVGenesis 1:13 is not in the Hebrew text.
2) The English reader does not associate on with day as one word, on day.
Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1?
1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative yom actually supports the view that the
creative yom are not ordinary (24-hour) days.
2) The numbering of the creative yom does not exclude the extended period or age meaning of
the Hebrew word yom when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the
creative times adds support for the extended period or age meaning.
3) There are no other applicable examples of the numbering of a sequence that is equivalent to the
numbering of the creative yom. Assertions which attempt to interpret numberings which read
yom second using numberings which read in yom the second are flawed.
To many readers of English translation, the difference in meaning between a second day and the second day
will not be apparent. Because of this, the Hebrew phrases are better translated another way.
This author prefers translating a second time, a third time, etc., which avoids the confusing use of the English
word day with two different meanings in Genesis 1:1-31. The translations the second day, the third day, etc.,
conceal the fact that the Hebrew does not use the ordinal numbering used in other verses when referring to the
activities of an ordinary daytime. Some recent translations, such as the NAS, now translate a second day,
a third day, etc., for Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, and Genesis 1:23.
As was already noted, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:5 reads yom one, and does not use the Hebrew word rison
meaning first. In other verses, when ehad (one) is used as an ordinal, it appears as haehad including the prefix
ha meaning the. Genesis 2:11 is an example of this use. The absence of the prefix ha in Genesis 1:5 shows that
the ehad should be translated one and not first.
I hope this provides some useful information and clarification.
Rodney Whitefield 6/12/2006 [/quote]
Mossi
listed below. As listed, the entire Hebrew word with attached prefixes is translated enclosed in quotation marks and
represents successive words:
yom second one verse, Genesis 1:8
in yom the second 8 times [ This is Archers hayyom hasseni.]
and in yom the second 3 times
Searching the KJV Old Testament for second day, I found 15 verses. Two of the 15 verses do not have the Hebrew
word yom; the English word day appears in italics. Another verse, 1 Samuel 20:34, has an intervening word and
reads in yom of the month the second.
When the search was extended to include numbering by two through six, the Hebrew words appear 56 times as
described by both 2) and 3) above. 1 Chronicles 26:17 is an exception which uses to yom four. Genesis 1:31
is an exception reading yom the sixth, a combination which appears only in this verse. Of the six creative
times only Genesis 1:31 prefixes the number; the word yom remains unprefixed.
The above pattern of prefixing both the ordinal number and the word yom also, almost always, describes the
numbering of yom by the seventh, (44 times) and the eighth (17 times). The exceptions being and yom
the seventh which appears two times, and yom the seventh which appears one time in Genesis 2:3. The
Hebrew pattern is not always visible in English translation. For example, the Hebrew of Exodus 20:11 reads
on yom the seventh, but some translations read the seventh day omitting the prefix on. The NAS, NIV,
and many recent translations now more correctly translate and rested on the seventh day.
By consulting the Hebrew text of the Bible it can be established that:
A. The repeated pattern of the numbering of the creative times
in Genesis One is unique. Each of the
Hebrew numberings expressed by yom + number used in Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19,
Genesis 1:23, and Genesis 1:31, appear only one time in the Bible.
B. The pattern of the numbering of
the yom in other verses of the Bible almost always
includes both of procedures (2) and (3) above for numbers two through six.
These results confirm Geislers: Neither is there a rule of Hebrew language demanding that all
numbered days in a series refer to twenty-four-hour days.
These results and the uniform absence of the definite article the prefixing the Hebrew word yom,
confirms the basis of Archers:
. . . none of the six creative days bears a definite article in the Hebrew text;
the translations the first day, the second day, etc., are in error.
3 of 3
3 of 3
Heb Genesis 22:4 in yom the third . . .
NIVGenesis 22:4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance.
The reader of the Hebrew text sees the first two words as in yom the third . . . .
The reader of the English translation sees two words, third day, not in yom the third.
This difference in perception also occurs for Genesis 1:13:
Heb Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning yom third.
NIV Genesis 1:13 And there was evening, and there was morning the third day.
The Hebrew reader knows that the in yom the third of Genesis 22:4
differs from the Hebrew yom third of Genesis 1:13.
A person reasoning on the basis of English translations can (erroneously) conclude that the numbering third day
of Genesis 22:4 is equivalent to the yom third of Genesis 1:13 because:
1) The English reader does not know that the third of the NIV Genesis 1:13 is third in the Hebrew,
and does not know that the the in NIVGenesis 1:13 is not in the Hebrew text.
2) The English reader does not associate on with day as one word, on day.
Conclusion: What does all the foregoing mean for understanding Genesis 1?
1) The uniqueness of the Hebrew numbering of the creative yom actually supports the view that the
creative yom are not ordinary (24-hour) days.
2) The numbering of the creative yom does not exclude the extended period or age meaning of
the Hebrew word yom when referring to the six creative times. The unique numbering of the
creative times adds support for the extended period or age meaning.
3) There are no other applicable examples of the numbering of a sequence that is equivalent to the
numbering of the creative yom. Assertions which attempt to interpret numberings which read
yom second using numberings which read in yom the second are flawed.
To many readers of English translation, the difference in meaning between a second day and the second day
will not be apparent. Because of this, the Hebrew phrases are better translated another way.
This author prefers translating a second time, a third time, etc., which avoids the confusing use of the English
word day with two different meanings in Genesis 1:1-31. The translations the second day, the third day, etc.,
conceal the fact that the Hebrew does not use the ordinal numbering used in other verses when referring to the
activities of an ordinary daytime. Some recent translations, such as the NAS, now translate a second day,
a third day, etc., for Genesis 1:8, Genesis 1:13, Genesis 1:19, and Genesis 1:23.
As was already noted, the Hebrew of Genesis 1:5 reads yom one, and does not use the Hebrew word rison
meaning first. In other verses, when ehad (one) is used as an ordinal, it appears as haehad including the prefix
ha meaning the. Genesis 2:11 is an example of this use. The absence of the prefix ha in Genesis 1:5 shows that
the ehad should be translated one and not first.
I hope this provides some useful information and clarification.
Rodney Whitefield 6/12/2006 [/quote]
Mossi
Scimitar
Eschatologist
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
maybe you should try eating those words now?
Somebody should. You just seem to be regurgitating someone else's.
McBell
Unbound
maybe you should try eating those words now?
Based on a bunch of copy/paste?
You are too funny.
Scimitar
Eschatologist
What the heck is wrong with people - you require proof and when it is presented to you, you claim "copy paste" information is still information - the fact that it has been copied from somewhere else does not lessen the information now does it?
So if you want me to respond to any more of your questions, know this - i will post links, articles and whatever I have at my disposal to make a point, and that's the way i work.
If its only opinions you want - you are not gonna learn anything but an opinion. And lets face it, opinions are like ********, everyone has one.... but not everyone can provide scholarly articles or comment on them due to the amount of study they've invested in it.
And for the record, the Islamic stuff was all my own, posted on vigilant forum a few months ago - I hope that flies well with you (sheesh)
and if you don't read the articles and still ask stupid questions, you won't have them answered by me.
You want to know my stance? read my last 5 posts in this thread.
information is still information - the fact that it has been copied from somewhere else does not lessen the information now does it?So if you want me to respond to any more of your questions, know this - i will post links, articles and whatever I have at my disposal to make a point, and that's the way i work.
If its only opinions you want - you are not gonna learn anything but an opinion. And lets face it, opinions are like ********, everyone has one.... but not everyone can provide scholarly articles or comment on them due to the amount of study they've invested in it.
And for the record, the Islamic stuff was all my own, posted on vigilant forum a few months ago - I hope that flies well with you (sheesh)
and if you don't read the articles and still ask stupid questions, you won't have them answered by me.
You want to know my stance? read my last 5 posts in this thread.
McBell
Unbound
What the heck is wrong with people - you require proof and when it is presented to you, you claim "copy paste"
So if you want me to respond to any more of your questions, know this - i will post links, articles and whatever I have at my disposal to make a point, and that's the way i work.
If its only opinions you want - you are not gonna learn anything but an opinion. And lets face it, opinions are like ********, everyone has one.... but not everyone can provide scholarly articles or comment on them due to the amount of study they've invested in it.
And for the record, the Islamic stuff was all my own, posted on vigilant forum a few months ago - I hope that flies well with you (sheesh)
and if you don't read the articles and still ask stupid questions, you won't have them answered by me.
You want to know my stance? read my last 5 posts in this thread.
Your strawman is comical.
But not nearly as comical as your voracious attack of it.
Keep up the good work.
Scimitar
Eschatologist
you dont even know what a straw man is lol... your use of it is what's comical
I will not regurgitate information in my own words when someone else has already taken the time and effort to make the document. I would instead, prefer to let you read what I sponsor. What's wrong with that? Are you so stupid that you think that is a straw man?
You're ridiculing yourself. hehe
I will not regurgitate information in my own words when someone else has already taken the time and effort to make the document. I would instead, prefer to let you read what I sponsor. What's wrong with that? Are you so stupid that you think that is a straw man?
You're ridiculing yourself. hehe