Adam & Eve - How did the world populate?

[arce1988]

  Would God be so stupid to let one brother steal and pretend to be the other?

[Jadeveon Clowney]

We all know you have your head in the sand and refuse to take it out.  You don't need to keep telling us how it looks under there.

oh go fuck yourself, "medical student"

what med school let you in?  University of Trinidad and Tobago?

[tommywishbone]

1) There's no way to prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years without many broad assumptions.

[lovemonkey]

1) There's no way to prove the Earth is older than 10,000 years without many broad assumptions.

 

[a_ahmed]

Option B - Monkey magically writes the most sophisticated chess program the world has ever seen

Only a moron would pick option B, but in essence, that's what evolution is saying happened.  I'm in med school, and all I keep hearing over and over again is "we still don't understand how this works".  Which tells me that the design of the body is VERY VERY complex.  Yet, somehow, it all just works perfectly because billions of years made it so by smashing away at the universal keyboard?  I think not. 

Why then do people continue to pick Option B?  Because they refuse to acknowledge there is a God because of their lifestyles / beliefs.  

So true bro. And if you confront them they will tell you, you are 'anti-science' as so many atheists have done to me. Not to mention some are so puffed up about themselves feeling all 'superior' and as 'holders of the ultimate knowledge of science'.... its a joke.

They always make all these lame statements like "BUT all scientists know its true, duh" and such empty blank statements.

From engineers, to doctors, to biologists (a friend of mine who has a degree/masters/phd/some other post grad specializations, finished biology degree, genetic engineering and forensics. Years of study.

He doesn't believe in darwinism or evolution theory as these atheists proselytize.

Point in fact. Darwin himself just used his visual observations and made conclusions. He could not even see the workings of a cell!

It's just ridiculous.

[NEXUS 6]

We all know you have your head in the sand and refuse to take it out.  You don't need to keep telling us how it looks under there.

says the guy who thinks it's perfectly plausible that a man lived inside a whale for three days, underwater...LOL

[OTHstrong]

big cyp, the bible has been change over time repeatedly.

btw i do believe in god, i just dont think highly of any religion.

Actually are you familiar with the dead sea scrolls found in 1947. Well, everyone always argued that the Bible has been changed over and over again and all Biblical theologians had no way of arguing this point.

So we read from our modern Bible, King James version, that we at least know has not been changed since 1611. Then comes ancient manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls that where written nearly 2000 years, the dates show first century and some of the scrolls can date back as far as 200 BC. Make a long story short The Biblical portions of the dead sea scroll are identical to the manuscript used in the king James version Bible. Absoluely identical to a T. So the Bible has not been changed over time, it has been identical from the first versions until now.

[OTHstrong]

Mockery and ridicule? is that the best you guys can muster? lol.

[haider]

ARGUMENTS AGAINST EINSTEINS THEORY OF RELATIVITY:
Part I

(4) Einstein's theory of relativity is a striking example for this observation. Most of you will know of Popper's admiration for Einstein, and how he was inspired by the theory of relativity (and by its high refutability in contrast to the irrefutability of psychoanalysis) more than by anything else to develop the criterion of falsifiability as a demarcation between science and metaphysics (Popper 1976, pp. 37-38). And in connection with this criterion he often quoted--and amplified--Einstein's words from Geometrie und Erfahrung (Einstein 1921):

Insofar as the expressions of mathematics refer to reality they are not certain, and insofar as they are certain they do not refer to reality.
(5) Going by this sentence it would appear that there could hardly have been a more perfect understanding on methodology than that between Einstein and Popper. And they even agreed in this, that they both believed the theory of relativity not to be the final truth. Einstein spent the last thirty years of his life in search of a general field theory. And from Popper's Realism and the Aim of Science (Popper 1983, p. xxviii) it can be seen that he considered the issue between Einstein and Lorentz, which is none other than the issue between relativistic physics and non-relativistic physics, to be still open.

(6) Most amazing about this is that they both held the key to the problem in their hands. Let us take a look at the general theory of relativity and at Einstein's concept of "curved space". It is reputed to be a difficult concept, but Einstein's deduction is simple enough to be understood by everybody. In one of his famous Gedankenexperimente he assumes a large box, or lift, being accelerated through space at a constant rate outside any other field of gravitation. He then first discusses the situation of a generation of physicists being born and living in that box, without being able to "look out of the window", and finds that, due to the constant rate of acceleration, they will be under the impression of living in a gravitational field. Permanent acceleration will permanently press them to the floor of the box. He then lets a ray of light travelling horizontally (parallel to the bottom, or x-axis) fall into the box through a hole in its side, and finds that, due to the finite velocity of light, and, again, due to the constant rate of acceleration of the box, this ray, which had been travelling in a straight line outside the box, will assume the shape of a parabolic curve inside the box. From the combination of these two considerations he infers that the scientists living in that box will ascribe the deflection of light to the influence of the gravitational field. And his further inference is that, since we, the human race, are living in the gravitational field of the earth, and the sun, without being able to "look out of the window", we must also assume that the lines of light will be curved in this field. Going by his own explanation, this, and nothing else, lies at the bottom of his famous concept of "curved space".

(7) Now, I fear that some of you may not believe this. The lift-example is taken from the book "Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie" in which Einstein tried to explain the theory of relativity to non-physicists in a popular way (Einstein 1917, chapter 20). It seems unfair to hold this attempt at a simple visualisation of a difficult scientific theory against him. But I assure you that I have looked through Einstein's papers very carefully, especially through the early ones, and I have found many complicated discussions of the implications resulting from curved space, and also many adaptations of the theory to empirical results which surprised me because the experiments in question might well have been taken as refutations of the theory. I have also found the arguments used in the lift-example formulated in a more scientific shape, referring not to lifts, or boxes, but to systems of coordinates, and planets, and ellipses (Einstein 1916). But the gist of the argument always remained the same. And nowhere have I found anything like a critical discussion of the fundamental premise that light will be deflected in the gravitational field. The discussion of this premise did not take place in Einstein's papers; nor have I found it anywhere else.

( You may still not feel reassured because I am only a lawyer, and admittedly know very little about physics, and even less about mathematics. But perhaps a quotation from Einstein's own text will convince you. In "Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie" (Einstein 1916)--and this is not a simplified book, but one of his original publications in Annalen der Physik--he explicitly says (the translation is mine, but the words are his):

For it is possible `to create' [he puts this in quotation marks] a gravitational field by merely changing the system of coordinates ... it is easy to see that the way of light relative to K' [K' is the system of coordinates that is being accelerated, i.e. the "lift"] will generally be curved if light moves in a straight line and with constant velocity relative to K.
(9) This, I believe, shows quite clearly that, at that time, he considered the deflection of light as a necessary implication of acceleration, resulting from a purely mathematical operation, viz. the "changing of the system of coordinates". To him it was the result of a mathematical equation. In fact he inferred this deflection from two very simple premises: (1) the constant velocity of light, and (2) an identification of acceleration with gravitation[2].

(10) Let us now look at this argument with Karl Popper's eyes.

(11) According to Popper's "Logic of Scientific Discovery" Einstein's reasoning is not only very strong, but in fact too strong. For it is, of course, true that the ray of light falling into the accelerating box will form a parabolic curve. But this is true not only for light, but also for any other ray travelling at constant speed, and entering the box at an angle of   . The shape of the parabolic curve will, of course, vary depending on the velocity of the ray and the acceleration of the box, but if one of two intersecting systems of coordinates is moving at constant velocity while the other is being accelerated the function of the intersection must necessarily be a parabolic curve. This is not only true for rays of light; it is even true for rays, or lines, that exist only in our imagination, or for a box without top or bottom, and therefore without gravitational field. It is independent of any physical properties of those rays, and has nothing to do with gravitation, but simply consists of a geometrical description of two bodies, or systems of coordinates, moving at speeds relative to each other, when one of them is being accelerated and the other is not. It is the result of a valid mathematical inference which can therefore never be refuted. It is a simple truism of analytical geometry and therefore belongs to mathematics, but not to physics. So it falls victim to Einstein's own criterion: because it is certain it does not refer to reality. And if it does not refer to reality, then it does not describe a physical property of light, or of space. And in Popper's terminology the theory of curved space is non-empirical because it cannot be refuted by any conceivable experiment, or physical property of light[3]. Therefore we may not infer from this theory that space is curved in reality, and that light will be deflected in the gravitational field.


FOR MORE follow this link:
http://www.tkpw.net/tcr/volume-01/number-03/node3.html

[haider]

WHY THE EARTH MAY REALLY BE FLAT

G. Scott Acton
Northwestern University
The hypothesis H is considered that the earth is flat. A relatively simple observation (or experimental outcome) that might plausibly be used to refute H is suggested. The purported refutation is analyzed, identifying the auxiliary assumptions involved, so as to show how H may be saved from actually being refuted. Then it is shown how H can be used, together with some revised auxiliary assumptions that seem reasonable or plausible, to account for the very observation (or outcome) that was originally supposed to refute H.
According to a philosophy often attributed to Sir Karl Popper (1959), naive or dogmatic falsificationism, science is defined as a modus tollens argument of the following form. First, from a hypothesis we draw some observational consequence: H implies C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that H is false. Diagrammatically, we have the following logical argument:
IF H, THEN NOT C*.
C*.
________________________ __
THEREFORE, NOT H.

If this were all there is to science, then there could be no objection to the conclusion that H is false, because it is a consequence of a logically valid argument: given the truth of the premises, the truth of the conclusion follows. However, if we look at the actual practice of scientists, we will find that this is not a true picture of the way science is actually conducted. Scientists routinely argue over conclusions from observation and experiment. What could they possibly have to argue about if science progresses as a series of deductive arguments of the form proposed above? Well, it turns out that there is more to the logical structure of science than the naive scheme for falsification would hold. The key to understanding this "something more" is understanding the role of auxiliary assumptions. Auxiliary assumptions are subject-specific assumptions concerning the initial conditions or experimental assumptions, and/or the assumptions of the theory.

According to the more sophisticated scheme for falsification (Popper's methodological falsificationism), we start out with a hypothesis plus some auxiliary assumptions, which combined imply some observational consequence: H plus auxiliary assumptions imply C. Then we do the experiment and find some observed outcome: C*. If C* is incompatible with C, then we conclude that either H is false or some of the auxiliary assumptions are false (or both). There is room for argument as to what exactly is to blame for the anomalous observational outcome, C*. Diagrammatically, we have the following:

IF (H & A1 & A2 & A3 . . . ), THEN NOT C*.
C*.
________________________ ________________________ __________________
THEREFORE, NOT H, OR NOT A1, OR NOT A2, . . .

A particularly effective rhetorical strategy is to take a potential falsifier, such as the anomalous observation C*, and, by modifying the auxiliary assumptions, turn it into a corroborating instance of the hypothesis, H. This is exactly the strategy that I will attempt to illustrate in the remainder of this paper.

Consider the hypothesis, H, that the earth is flat. Now suppose we wished to derive some testable observational consequences from this hypothesis. If the earth is flat, then we should not observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. However, we do observe a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse. Therefore, according to the naive scheme for falsification, we have a completely knock-down argument that the earth is not flat.

However, what auxiliary assumptions intervene between hypothesis and conclusion? Auxiliary assumptions can be divided into two types: experimental assumptions concerning the initial conditions, and theoretical assumptions.

As for the initial conditions of this experiment, we note the following. First, we assume that the sun gives the moon its light. Second, we assume that the earth and not another celestial body intervenes between the sun and the moon to cause the lunar eclipse. Third, we assume that the behavior of light is the same in outer space as it is on earth. Fourth, we assume that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Fifth, we assume that the shadow cast by the sun is not obscured by light from other heavenly bodies, such as the stars. On the theoretical side, we assume a theory of optics that would allow us to tell the difference between a curved and flat shadow.

Let us take the fourth experimental assmption, that the rotation of the earth has no effect on the shape of the shadow cast by the earth upon the moon. Is this really credible? If this assumption were not true, then that could shift the evidence in favor of a flat earth. Let's see how.

A quarter is a flat object. However, if you spin a quarter on its axis, the shadow made by a light overhead is in the shape of a circle.

Suppose that the earth is flat, as per our initial hypothesis. Now suppose that the earth is in constant motion. In fact, it is widely acknowledged that the earth is spinning at the tremendous rate of approximately 1000 miles per hour. Given these assmptions, what shape shadow should the earth cast upon the moon during a lunar eclipse? Clearly, the earth should cast a circular shadow!

I have demonstrated that the earth may in fact be flat. I have done so by turning a previous argument against the flatness of the earth on its head, showing the importance of the role played by auxiliary assumptions. Let us continue this exercise to account for one further observation.

Given that the earth is spinning at a tremendous rate, why do we not fly off the earth? The answer is that gravity pulls us down, keeping us in close proximity to the earth. In fact, gravity seems to be equally in operation at every point along the surface of the earth, just as we would expect if the earth were a sphere.

How can we account for the equal effects of gravity if the earth is a flat disc? Gravity is a force field. Nobody really knows what gravity looks like--we only know what gravity is like through its effects: it pulls us downward. Therefore, suppose that gravity is curved. It proceeds from the center of mass of the disc-shaped earth out to the further reaches of the earth, while all the time it is curved in such a way as to pull objects on the earth downward. That would account for the observed effects of gravity.

Now I have shown how a little tinkering with auxiliary assumptions can change the evidence against a hypothesis to favor it. Given that the earth is spinning rapidly so as to cause a circular shadow during a lunar eclipse, and that gravity is curved so as to affect the whole surface of the earth equally, we can conclude that the earth may in fact be flat. On the other hand, the auxiliary assumptions themselves need to be subjected to empirical test, and their auxiliary assumptions need to be subjected to empirical test, and so on. Given different auxiliary assumptions, we might arrive at a different conclusion. As Einstein and Infeld (1938, pp. 30-31) say, "It is really our whole system of guesses which is to be either proved or disproved by experiment. No one of the assumptions can be isolated for separate testing.... [W]e can well imagine that another system, based on different assumptions, might work just as well."

http://www.personalityresearch.org/metatheory/flatearth.html

[haider]

[haider]

The Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy

The moon landing hoax controversy is still evident after 36 years (please read footnote below this text). On July 20th, 1969 our lives changed forever. This was not due to any disastrous event that took place here on Earth, but an amazing event that took place in the heavens, when the first man walked on that wondrous thing people had gazed at and wondered about for centuries - the moon. Our world was changing at that time in leaps and bounds. It was a time of endless possibilities. Many people think of this as a moon landing hoax or the first man on the moon hoax. In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, some people still believe that the landing of a man on the moon was a trick of television.
Shadows on the Moon

One of the arguments from skeptics to substantiate the moon landing hoax theory involves the shadows that illuminated from the lunar surface when the pictures that were sent back to us. They argue that if this is not a hoax, why is it that facts about the moon state there are no shadows in space. This argument about this moon landing hoax comes from believers that feel the sun is the only source of light in the universe. When you think of the moon, you must consider that the sun is not the only source of light on the moon and that the lunar surface reflects its own light which illuminates all things on the surface. Therefore there is no credence in the theory of a moon landing hoax.

The Fluttering Flag

Another part of the moon landing hoax theory deals with the American flag. The picture that was sent back showed this flag fluttering as in a wind. Some believers in the moon landing hoax feel that this was proof that this picture had been taken on earth and not the result of a moon landing. The fact that the flag flutters in the wind when there is no wind on the moon could lend some degree of credibility to the belief that this was a hoax. However, experts, in an attempt to defend the landing against the moon landing hoax theory explained that a vacuum has no friction. On the moon things don't stop moving as quickly as they do on Earth, so when the astronauts got the flag attached to the surface and straightened, it stayed there longer than what we are accustomed to. Hence the picture was taken with the flag waving is proof that the moon landing hoax theory is incorrect.

Driving the Rover

The pictures of the astronauts driving the Rover also proved to many that this was a moon landing hoax However, the projection of the speed of a film showing the astronauts driving in the moon proves that it really did happen. There were no clouds of dust rinsing from the tires of the Rover because moon dust returns directly to the surface. Therefore it was not possible back in 1969 to have this type of controlled environment in which to display a moon landing hoax.

[OTHstrong]

Bro no one is going to read that so do you mined telling us what you are getting at here please.  

[haider]

WHY JESUS NEVER EXISTED

There is no contemporary historical record of any kind of Jesus!! No written Roman, Greek or Jewish sources from this time (apart from the gospels) know of any historical Jesus or Christ. The name "Christ" is mentioned in some later texts (Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny d.y.) but then merely as the name of the idol of the Christians' worship (Read what these sources really say here). We don't even know who the writers of the Gospels were, and don't have the original manuscripts themselves either. We just have later copies of copies of copies of copies … of copies of the assumed lost originals. And with each copy the copyist usually felt free to alter details or rewrite whole parts of the manuscript. (We usually don't trust dubious anonymous sources as evidence for anything, do we?)

All the divine aspects of the Jesus figure are "stolen" from earlier similar dying and resurrected godmen, such as Dionysos, Osiris, Hercules, Attis, Mithra, Horus, Zarathustra and others. Actually there are few (if any) things about Jesus that are original at all. Jesus is just the Jewish version of this popular mythic Saviour- character in the Mystery-religions of Antiquity. (See the similarities here).

All the teachings of Jesus are "borrowed" from older sources, for example from the teachings of Buddha. Many of Jesus teachings are almost word for word identical with some of Buddhas sayings (400 years earlier). The so-called "Golden rule" can be found in several earlier pagan Greek (and Jewish) texts. The famous "Sermon on the Mount" was never held by Jesus (of course, since he never existed), but also because it was actually first produced in the second century AD by Christian priests, assembled from what they assumed were sayings of Jesus in different other texts.

The "birthday" of Jesus is of course unknown, not even the year of his miraculous birth is known. The church just stole the already popular date of the 25th December, which in Antiquity was an immensely popular celebration of the birth of the sungod Mithra, - "the light of the world".
More on the origin of Christmas - see the here

The story of Jesus was originally an allegorical story based partly on the Jewish exodus myth and Joshua/Jesus ben Nun, successor of Moses, the Jewish Messiah-myth and the widespread pagan myth of the dying and resurrected godman Dionysos-Osiris. Later uneducated Christians in Rome, people without the insight and understanding of the deeper meaning of the texts, started to take these allegorical stories for their face value, and Literary Christianity as we know it was born.

http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

[haider]

PROOF OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST

Barrack Sodobama is left-handed!

"The Bible contains about 25 unfavorable references to the left hand. In the best known example, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations: And he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, 'Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.' ... Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.'" (Matthew 25:31-34, 41)"

MORE:

The 27 Characteristics of the AntiChrist:

1. He comes from among ten kings in the restored Roman Empire; his authority will have similarities to the ancient Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks [Daniel 7:24; Rev 13:2 / Daniel 7:7]

Obama: American president has similarities to Babylonians, Persians, and Greeks.

2. He will subdue three kings [Daniel 7:8, 24]

Obama: Hmmm... McCain, Hillary and John Edwards

3. He is diverse from the other kings [Daniel 7:24]

Obama: Mixed race

4. He will rise from obscurity…a “little horn” [Daniel 7:8]

Obama: virtually unheard of two years ago.

5. He will speak boastfully [Daniel 7:8; Rev 13:5]

Obama: Change we can [blindly] believe in...

6. He will blaspheme God, [Daniel 7:25; 11:36; Rev 13:5] slandering His Name, dwelling place, and departed Christians and Old Testament saints [Rev 13:6]

Obama: not exactly getting along with his pastor...

7. He will oppress the saints and be successful for 3 ½ years [Daniel 7:25; Rev 13:7]

Obama: One termer.

8. He will try to change the calendar, perhaps to define a new era, related to himself [Daniel 7:25]

Obama: Michigan primary... once again change he can believe in... may be a 3 day work week.

9. He will try to change the laws, perhaps to gain an advantage for his new kingdom and era
[Dan 7:25]

Obama: wants to re-negotiate NAFTA!

10. He will not be succeeded by another earthly ruler, but by Christ [Daniel 7:26-27]

Obama: Future stuff...

11. He will confirm a covenant with “many” [Daniel 9:27]
This covenant will likely involve the establishment of a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem
[see Dan 9:27; Matt 24:15]

Obama: Future stuff: , diplomatic deal? treaty? NAFTA? Peace treaty with bin Ladin? Who knows.

12. He will put an end to Jewish sacrifice and offerings after 3 ½ years and will set up an abomination to God in the Temple [Daniel 9:27, Matthew 24:15]

Obama: I've never heard of him sacrificing an animal, or follow ANY of the sacrifice rites from the book of Leviticus.

13. He will not answer to a higher earthly authority; “He will do as he pleases”[Daniel 11:36]

Obama: U.S. presidents are like that....

14. He will show no regard for the religion of his ancestors [Daniel 11:37]

Obama: His Father was a Muslim...

15. He will not believe in any god at all [except for himself] [Daniel 11:37]
Obama: His Mother is an atheist. He was raised atheist. And his adopted church believes in stuff that's kind of politically incorrect. Does he really believe in god?

16. He will have "no regard for the desire of women"[Dan 11:37]

Obama: He doesn't much care for Hillary. Bill embodies the the "desire of women"...

17. He will claim to be greater than any god [Daniel 11:37; 2 Thess 2:4]

Obama: Obviously someone who disobeys the bible thinks they are greater than God.

18. He will claim to be God [2 Thessalonians 2:4]

Obama: Satanists claim to be gods, and as a democrat, he is a satanist.

19. He will only honor a “god” of the military. His whole focus and attention will be on his military. He will conquer lands and distribute them [Daniel 11:39-44]

Obama: Has an expert "campaign" - the electoral equivalent of an army.

20. His arrival on the world scene will be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders [2 Thess 2:9]

Obama: Signs/Disasters like Chinese earth quake, the cyclone that his burma. Wonders like a black man and a woman are to front runners for US president...

21. Either he, or his companion [The False Prophet], will claim to be Christ [Matt 24:21-28]

Obama: We'll have to wait for his choice on a running mate.

22. He will claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh, or that Jesus did not rise bodily from the grave [2 John 7]. He will deny that Jesus is the Messiah [I John 2:22]

Obama: Is a democrat.

23. He will be worshipped by many people [Rev. 13:8]

Obama: I would have to say this is true...

24. He will hate a nation that initially will have some control over his kingdom, but he will destroy this nation [Rev 17:16-18]

Obama: Israel?

25. He will appear to survive a fatal injury [Rev. 13:3; 17:8]

Obama: Everyone thought his campaign was "dead" before Iowa.

26. His name will be related to the number six hundred and sixty six [Rev 13:17-18].

Was born in Chicago zip code: 60606

27. He will be empowered by the devil himself [Rev. 13:2]

Nominated by democratic party.

UPDATE! Matthew 5:34 CLEARLY STATES THAT OBAMA "COMETH OF EVIL"

Obama insisted on taking the oath of office TWICE! Why is he so obsessed with oath-taking? Read Matthew chapter five, in which Jesus clearly says that oath-taking is "evil":

33 Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

[haider]

Bro no one is going to read that so do you mined telling us what you are getting at here please.  

I may be back for more, just spreading the truth brother.

[OTHstrong]

I may be back for more, just spreading the truth brother.

Well you certainly got the Jesus one wrong

[a_ahmed]

Wasn't Obama's name BarYUCK hesaliar obomber? Just a thought. Wait what does this have to do with homos who stick their thing in the wrong and dirty place?

[a_ahmed]

Actually are you familiar with the dead sea scrolls found in 1947. Well, everyone always argued that the Bible has been changed over and over again and all Biblical theologians had no way of arguing this point.

So we read from our modern Bible, King James version, that we at least know has not been changed since 1611. Then comes ancient manuscripts from the dead sea scrolls that where written nearly 2000 years, the dates show first century and some of the scrolls can date back as far as 200 BC. Make a long story short The Biblical portions of the dead sea scroll are identical to the manuscript used in the king James version Bible. Absoluely identical to a T. So the Bible has not been changed over time, it has been identical from the first versions until now.

I'm sorry to say but although I have not been to seminaries I have had the opportunity and time to study christianity and the bible quite in depth and know of people who have studied in seminaries and I've had the delightful pleasure of meeting and discussing with the bible and scriptures. One of my philosophy teachers was in the vatican order and left it so he could marry and eventually it led him to the teaching profession. He himself basically attested to no Jesus is not God, he was one of the first to make me think.

The bible indeed has been changed and cropped and copied and mistranslated over and over again. The king james bible is so erronous that the new standard revised edition dubs it as unbelievably riddled with errors. What was it something like 40000 or 50000 errors?

Then there's other things like major stories that were forged way after. Such as the NT story about the prostitute and 'those without sin can cast the first stone" which is not something Jesus said but a later forgery. Or the 'three in heaven' a forgery. Just to name a few prominent and VERY important creed altering additions and fabrications.

The ending, openings of certain books. In the end, no it has been changed and corrupted.

Those who know very well are the ones actually closest to the study of the bible, those prominent theologians that go to seminaries and not joes who assume what their preacher tells them from their handy dandy bible on sunday or sunday class.

I have two bibles at home and just reading between the two of them there are so many differences. Heck then there are the apocrypha.

So sorry to say in this regard I totally disagree, you have to be honest with yourself. Don't be a deluded evangelist who believes the entire bible is the 'word of God' when the NT is pretty much composed of Paul's personal writings, his 'letters' propagating his person gospel and beliefs.

[OTHstrong]

You are a very foolish person, I just proved it has not been changed and you gave me a whole page of absolute garbage.

NOW PAY CLOSE ATTENTION BRAINIAC

DEAD SEA SCROLLS =2000 YEARS OLD

THE MODERN BIBLE, IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD

A 2 Year old can figure this out wooooooooooooooooooooooo sh

[a_ahmed]

lol I guess you missed the whole part about 'forged verses' and 'forged stories'.

You realize the scriptures are tiny parchments here and there, it's not like a 'whole book'.

There are many copies left and right. It's all contested and not 'absolute'

Most Christian theologians know this

As a Christian I did not know that the story of the prostitute was a later fabrication. Yet as a Muslim still studying the bible I learned about it's forgery.

You can't be that blind like most evangelists and believe it is the 'word of God'.

The bible is literally cropped together from parchments of scriptures over ages.

One would think a person can use the brain when in their bible's commentary it says "this is verse is a later addition" would make them 'think' but no

[a_ahmed]

Heck look at how christians argue about the various translations:

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/Revised%20Standard%20Version/revised_standard_version_exposed.htm

It's not God's word and it's been changed and tampered with. Each subsequent edition including the new standard revised edition emphasizes these things yet also acknowledges they 'kept' certain later additions because of the 'flow' or because people are used to these stories, etc...

In case you've never seen what the parchments can look like here:





Every day there is some Christian arguing between a Christian whether one verse or another in one translation or another is this or that.

[OTHstrong]

Bro what I think of all the other translations of the Bible is the same as what I think of of the Koran, false books inspired by satan, they are not the word of God.

The king James is the word of God and it is the only Bible inspired by God

So listen ding dong, I don`t care if the Bible is partial books blah blah blah,or I don`t care how you slice it, you have no argument here and making yourself look dumb.

FOR THE THIRD TIME  PAY ATTENTION

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ARE WORD FOR WORD WITH TODAYS BIBLE AND THEY ARE FROM 2000 YEARS AGO.

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS HAS EVERY SINGLE BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT  EXCEPT THE BOOK OF ESTHER, THAT IS 38 BOOKS AND EVERY SINGLE BOOK IS IDENTICAL WORD FOR WORD WITH TODAY`S BIBLE, WHICH MEANS IT HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED IN OVER 2000 YEARS,

DO YOU UNDERSTAND OR DO I HAVE TO TELL YOUR IGNORANT BRAIN A FOURTH TIME

[WOOO]

So, I was smoking this past weekend and got to thinking.....Adam and Eve were the first people on earth. So, they then had Cain and Abel, but Eve was the only was the only woman, soooo, how did the world populate if there was just ONE family on the entire planet?

triple stupid

your mom and I populated the whole planet

you're welcome

[a_ahmed]

lol no they're not. I have two bibles at home and they are different.

Do you have any idea how many editions of the bible there are? It's not just 'how things are worded' or translated (or rather mistranslated) but how things are deliberately added or manipulated or worded. Whole stories forged.

Damn.. well I can't argue with someone with such blind faith.

The bible comes from the word biblios in latin. Book. It is composed of many different 'books' and letters. These 'books' and letters are found scattered in parchments. Of these 'books' there are some that are included in some bibles and some that are not included, some that are not included at all yet are scripture both in OT and NT. The church decided which of these 'books' and letters to include and not include for instance.

These parchments you are arguing about I bet you never even saw them, obviously wouldn't know how to read them or understand them.

People who studied hebrew, konic greek attended seminaries and even saw with their own eyes these things know far more than you do and I'll take their word over your blind faith.

Don't get me wrong. I believe in God almighty and these writings include things from God, things from prophets, things from humans, things from rabbis, things from historians, things fromscribes and things from frauds but they are not 'the word of God'.

The king james bible was erronous yet became 'standard' bible of the time and won over.

The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the Scriptures, and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.

Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.

The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them. It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.

The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking peoples.

...

Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.

Despite these things they still decided to keep certain statements and forgeries/later additions because of their 'acceptance'.

Remember what's being contested is this:

Parchments of writings scattered here and there compared to other parchments here and there.