Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
August 22, 2014, 03:00:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Stephen Hawking:'There is NO heaven; it's a fairy story'- HAHHA  (Read 17674 times)
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3737



View Profile
« Reply #600 on: May 30, 2011, 06:51:33 AM »



Are far as proof is concerned the historicity of the bible simply is not in question any longer.  We have archeological proof to validate the claims of the bible.  (where is the archeological proof of Noahs ark? That dead saints rose from their graves and walked the streets? That the nile turned to blood? that all the first born were slain to kill the baby messiah? that there were giants? That men lived to be 900 yrs old?We have the close proximity between Christ's resurrection and the New Testament writings, No, you don't. There earliest possible writings are at least 30 yrs from Jesus' alleged crucifiction. 30 yrs is about a generation in those days. Can you imagine how stories were embilished in a 30 year time span? You can observe the embelishments for yourself when you read Matthews versions of events in comparison with the others.  the vast number of NT manuscripts,  the eyewitness accounts after his resurrection, the transformation of Saul of Tarsus to confirm his existance.How does this story confirm his existance exactly?  This doesn't even consider the scientific validation.  We also have the ancient writings of JosephusJosephus was jewish, was born about the time Jesus was alleged to have died. His mention of Jesus didn't appear in his writings until the 4th century. There are problems with the other examples but personally I am more than willing to accept a guy named Jesus existed, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger that validate Christ's life.  In fact, we have less proof for the existance of someone like Alexander the Great than we do Jesus Christ.  Within the fields of biochemistry and microbiology we are continually finding increased complexity and imposible elegance in the design of human dna....the source of which is causing more and more scientists to believe in a creator.  The lead geneticist (Francis Collins) in the Human Genome project is a devout Christian and an expert in his field.  Even he indicated that 40% of the scientists in his field are now believers.   We find the same elegance and complexity in the design of the universe and a growing populations of physicists who continually return to the likelihood of an intelligent design singularity in the cosmos which can't be denied unless the realm of metaphysics is explored.  Multiverses, other dimensions, time and space fluctuations have been used to justify the removal of the intelligent design singularity, but thus far even our own Stephen Hawking can't dismiss it without consulting a metaphysical approach.  I find the metaphysical debate kinda funny in that the supernatural is used to refute the supernatural (in a sense).  Philosophy has all but given up on reasoning away the existance of God as our own moral code has been embedded into who we are. Personal opinions not based on fact  We see a man drowning, we can't swim ourselves and think, "I've got to jump in and save that man."  This flies in the face our Darwinian, "only the strong will survive" mentality that would leave the man to drown without a bit of consideration for his well being.  So where did our intrinsic moral fiber originate?  The very concept of right and wrong that we all recognize and simply can't deny leaves the Godless philosphies flat..A huge jump to that conclusion..his presence is inherent in all of us whether we recognize his existance or not. Conjecture Step over to a scientific look, even carbon dating has been reviewed again and again and found that the billion year old universe is actually several thousands of years What?Huhold given that the way we originally measured radioactive decay rates in carbon was flawed.  Correct the math and billions become thousands.  Within cellular biology with see the sheer complexity of cellular engines that power differing aspects of the cell who's probability for random chance ocurrance is near impossible.  Also the elegance of the design lends intself only to an intelligent designer.   In terms of Geology we see evidence of a worldwide flood.  Science, mathematics and history all help validate the existance of God not refute it.  

Now the mystery Gods of the Mediterrenean world have long since been debunked.  Mithra, Dionysis, Osiris, Horus, I would add Jehovah, Allah, Elohimetc.....have all been debunked decades and decades ago.  The primary debunking (prior to any comparisons being made) are found in the 2nd century origination of these God myths.... the life of Christ and Christianity arose in the first century. The only exceptions to this debunking of timing are in reference to Horus and Osiris.  Further the sun God Horus has no ties or real comparisons to Jesus Christ.....just study Horus and Osiris and you'll find this true.  Everyone saw Religulous and the new generation of uninformed viewers feel prey to old an arguement that was debunked long before they were alive.  So why did the producers present the movie?  Oh I don't know, they hate Christians and love money and know the majority of the audience would be ignorant on these topics.  I'm no scientist, historian, etc....I'm just trying to learn like everyone else.

As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, "In the end there will be only two types of people.  Those that look at God and say 'thy will be done' and those that God looks at and says, 'Thy will be done'."   My hope and prayer is that the love of God be made evident in the lives of believers and nonbelievers alike.
Report to moderator   Logged
Onetimehard
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 13597


Jasher


View Profile
« Reply #601 on: May 30, 2011, 12:19:14 PM »


Ya cause Mos really said that every single verse in the Bible has an Archeological site with its name on it    Roll Eyes
  There are 100's of Archeological sites related to the Bible. Where are the giants?, c'mon now...giant bones found all over the place, this isn't even up for debate

To claim Jesus isn't the sun of God, well I can understand where youre coming from, don't agree, but I can understand...To claim a man name Jesus that walked about the first centrury in Palestine_Isreal region didnt exist altogether is outrages
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14853


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #602 on: May 30, 2011, 03:42:34 PM »



You know, my three favorite bible stories growing up were Samson and Delilah, David and Goliath and Noah’s Ark.  Man, I have wanted my entire life to see the ark found or even part of the ark found, but I don’t know if the gopher wood would last through all those centuries….maybe it would, I don’t know.  That said, we’re left without archeological proof, but we do have geological proof of a worldwide flood in the form of oceanic sediment found at very high elevations and the evidence of fast rock erosion (ex: the Grand Canyon).  Now, we also have some debate over the term “worldwide” in the worldwide flood.  Young earth creationists believe in a definite worldwide flood while theistic evolutionists adhere to a localized mass flood around Mt Ararat and Mespotamia.  They base their claims on the alignment of scripture between Genesis and the Psalms, but that’s a separate topic.  

The rising of the saints in Matthew has been a topic discussed long before I was alive and will persist after I’m gone I’m sure LOL.  I do have earmarked in my favorites some commentary around this and I’ve pasted a portion of that essay based on the verses in Matthew here:
“And the bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of
the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and
appeared unto many” (Matthew 27:52-53).
Another Calvary miracle was the resurrection of saints that accompanied the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our test reveals that “saints who had died” came out of the
graves that had opened three days before. The graves had been opened by the
earthquake at the death of Jesus Christ, and that the dead bodies arose and came out of
them after Christ Himself had risen, and that they went into Jerusalem and appeared
unto many. It is a statement of one of the grandest miracles, a gigantic, supernatural
exploit by God in the sense of being wholly miraculous. This statement that the bodies
arose and went into Jerusalem are self-luminous and their meaning as visible as light.
Not only are these words a part of Scripture, but though the concept of their rising at this time
of Christ’s death is so interlaced with Scripture that it could not but be there.
These saints coming out of the grave stands in line with the miraculous events of
the happenings at Calvary. It harmonizes with and explains the wonder of the opened
graves, just as that wonder was the product of the wondrous earthquake, and the
earthquake was the counterpart of the wondrous rending of the veil, that rending of the
veil answered back to the shout of victory from the Cross whose dying sufferer had just
emerged in triumph out of the almighty horrors of the symbolic darkness!
The resurrection of these saints, like the first fruit of the Jewish harvest, was an expressive
pledge of the coming general resurrection, when, from all the graveyards of the world,
wherever the mortal remains of a saint may lie, “this corruptible shall put on incorruption,
and this mortal immortality!” Our body that “is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is
sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:53; 43-44).
Matthew tells the story of wonder, “departed saints arose, and left their graves and
went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many” And he says nothing more. Did they to into the
houses of the people or only walked the streets? Did they appear only once, or from
time to time during the forty days of the Lord’s appearing after His resurrection.
Matthew doesn’t say. How they were affected by their return to this life; whether they
spoke of the realms of the dead or of the recent entrance of Christ into those realms; how
and when they finally disappeared or whither they went, on all these topics not a word,
not so much as the faintest recognition of the possibility of such questions being asked.
No merely human pen, having said so much, could have said so little.
Matthew tells us, “They appeared unto many.” Why should they appear except to
be recognized and identified? However, Moses and Elijah wee recognized by the
disciples at the transfiguration although they had never seen either one of them before.
The Holy Spirit is able to make known to one another those who before were strangers.
He is able to do it as easily and quietly as the light shines or as a new thought comes
into the mind.

The Nile turning to blood I’ve never actually questioned before given the supernatural nature of this situation.  I simply can’t talk to it, but if I come across any other literature I’ll be sure and pass it on.

The murder of the infant boys by King Herod was simply not a significant enough situation to be noted by historians.  Some speaks of thousands being murdered, but the actuality is that the small population in this small community would have amounted to dozens not thousands.  Now, is the act in and of itself horrific?   No doubt, but the illustration of this death of innocents in Matthews is about noting the fulfilling of prophecy outlined in the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament.  
"Thus says the LORD, 'A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.' "
Jeremiah 31:15  

I assume the giants you’re referring to are the Annakites (sons of Annak) or the Philistine Goliath and his brother?  I can’t speak at any length in terms of archeological finds, but I do understand that large fossiled human remains have been found….I can’t say any more than that caused I’m in no way versed in the topic.  The height of Goliath has been a point of debate since some OT manuscripts note his height at 6’9” vs the traditionally recognized 9’9” (I believe or maybe it’s 9’6”….either way it’s enormous).  The exact measurements have been points of debate, but most bibles in print today footnote this possible discrepancy (most don’t read footnotes though).  Archeologists and historians have noted that the average height of men in the OT was shorter than the average today; therefore, a 6’9” man would appear as a giant let alone a 9’6” or 9’9” man.

I have nothing to add on the subject of early Old Testament figures living to be as old as 900 years and no other proof to provide other than that of the OT.  I honestly can’t provide any other nonbiblical proof on the 900 year old figures in the Old Testament folks anymore than I could provide proof for the actual existence of a 900 year old Yoda from Star Wars, but I still believe in the inerrancy of the bible and have faith in these astonishing scriptures (I know, I know….faith-based conclusions are meaningless to an agnostic or an atheist).  

In terms of historical scholarship, a 30-year span of documentation after an event is an extremely close timeframe for the validation of an event.  Others biograpies written about numerous other historical figures have occurred hundreds of years after their actual lifetimes and the historicity of the written accounts simply aren't in question.  There are literally thousands of NT manuscripts that all corroborate the same NT claims written in very shorts spans after the actual events that help validate historicity.

Saul of Tarsus was a known Christian hunter and hated all things Christian.  On the road to Damascus Saul was encountered by the resurrected Christ:
Acts 22:6-11 (New King James Version)
6 “Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ 8 So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid,[a] but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. 10 So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus.

Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle and arguably the greatest advocate for the resurrected Christ and Christianity the world has ever known.  The Pauline letters to the various churches in the New Testament are monumental Christian writings and validate not only the resurrected Christ via eyewitness in Paul, but fully illustrate the transforming power of the risen God.

Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian that documented the existence of Jesus Christ.  The 4th century writings you mention are a variant Greek translation of the original 1st century writings determined by noted scholar Alice Whealey.  They don’t invalidate the original 1st century writings, but provide a variant from a 4th century text.  The existence of Christ Jesus is not in question.

I agree on all commentary concerning the philosophical aspect.  Since they in no way invalidate the resurrected Christ and his gift of salvation I have no problem and nothing further to add.

The idea of flawed carbon dating is new science in the realm of young creationists.  It’s a hotly contested position by theistic evolutionists who also belief in the resurrected Christ, but don’t agree with young creationists.  Like my atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters often comment, we just haven’t found the definite scientific method with which we all agree upon…..but we will in time.

I’m glad that we can discuss these topics openly and without slinging insults….that says a lot about your character.  Disagreement and insult are two very different things.  We may disagree but we have no reason to hate each other or belittle each other….I respect that.






Report to moderator   Logged

lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7706


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


View Profile
« Reply #603 on: May 30, 2011, 03:58:45 PM »

The idea of flawed carbon dating is new science in the realm of young creationists.  It’s a hotly contested position by theistic evolutionists who also belief in the resurrected Christ, but don’t agree with young creationists.  Like my atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters often comment, we just haven’t found the definite scientific method with which we all agree upon…..but we will in time.


If you don't mind, I would very much like to see any sort of scientific article that puts the carbon dating in to question.

Have you forgotten that carbon dating is only useful for limited amount of time? There are a plethora of other radioactive clocks available, some of which are only good for a couple of seconds, and others for billions of years. Carbon dating is not the end all, be all for 'debunking' creationist madness. There are heaps upon heaps of evidence that support the scientific world view that the Earth is several billion years old.

Btw, what is your take on the wandering jew if I may ask?
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14853


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #604 on: May 30, 2011, 04:32:46 PM »

If you don't mind, I would very much like to see any sort of scientific article that puts the carbon dating in to question.

Have you forgotten that carbon dating is only useful for limited amount of time? There are a plethora of other radioactive clocks available, some of which are only good for a couple of seconds, and others for billions of years. Carbon dating is not the end all, be all for 'debunking' creationist madness. There are heaps upon heaps of evidence that support the scientific world view that the Earth is several billion years old.

Btw, what is your take on the wandering jew if I may ask?


Here is an article I have saved:

Scientists use a technique called radiometric dating to estimate the ages of rocks, fossils, and the earth. Many people have been led to believe that radiometric dating methods have proved the earth to be billions of years old. This has caused many in the church to reevaluate the biblical creation account, specifically the meaning of the word “day” in Genesis 1. With our focus on one particular form of radiometric dating—carbon dating—we will see that carbon dating strongly supports a young earth. Note that, contrary to a popular misconception, carbon dating is not used to date rocks at millions of years old.

Basics
Before we get into the details of how radiometric dating methods are used, we need to review some preliminary concepts from chemistry. Recall that atoms are the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms are made up of much smaller particles called protons, neutrons, and electrons. Protons and neutrons make up the center (nucleus) of the atom, and electrons form shells around the nucleus.

The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom determines the element. For example, all carbon atoms have 6 protons, all atoms of nitrogen have 7 protons, and all oxygen atoms have 8 protons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus can vary in any given type of atom. So, a carbon atom might have six neutrons, or seven, or possibly eight—but it would always have six protons. An “isotope” is any of several different forms of an element, each having different numbers of neutrons. The illustration below shows the three isotopes of carbon.

Some isotopes of certain elements are unstable; they can spontaneously change into another kind of atom in a process called “radioactive decay.” Since this process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a rock or fossil formed. There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.

 
The atomic number corresponds to the number of protons in an atom. Atomic mass is a combination of the number of protons and neutrons in the nucleus. (The electrons are so much lighter that they do not contribute significantly to the mass of an atom.)
Carbon-14 Dating
Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common.1

When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word. Genesis 1 defines the days of creation to be literal days (a number with the word “day” always means a normal day in the Old Testament, and the phrase “evening and morning” further defines the days as literal days). Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, we should examine the validity of the standard interpretation of 14C dating by asking several questions:

1.Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)?
2.Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method?
3.Are the dates provided by 14C dating consistent with what we observe?
4.Do all scientists accept the 14C dating method as reliable and accurate?
All radiometric dating methods use scientific procedures in the present to interpret what has happened in the past. The procedures used are not necessarily in question. The interpretation of past events is in question. The secular (evolutionary) worldview interprets the universe and world to be billions of years old. The Bible teaches a young universe and earth. Which worldview does science support? Can carbon-14 dating help solve the mystery of which worldview is more accurate?

The use of carbon-14 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-14 is mostly used to date once-living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can potentially be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds could contain carbon-14). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 14C, it can only give dates in the thousands-of-year range and not millions.

There are three different naturally occurring varieties (isotopes) of carbon: 12C, 13C, and 14C.

Carbon-14 is used for dating because it is unstable (radioactive), whereas 12C and 13C are stable. Radioactive means that 14C will decay (emit radiation) over time and become a different element. During this process (called “beta decay”) a neutron in the 14C atom will be converted into a proton. By losing one neutron and gaining one proton, 14C is changed into nitrogen-14 (14N = 7 protons and 7 neutrons).

  If 14C is constantly decaying, will the earth eventually run out of 14C? The answer is no. Carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere. Cosmic rays from outer space, which contain high levels of energy, bombard the earth’s upper atmosphere. These cosmic rays collide with atoms in the atmosphere and can cause them to come apart. Neutrons that come from these fragmented atoms collide with 14N atoms (the atmosphere is made mostly of nitrogen and oxygen) and convert them into 14C atoms (a proton changes into a neutron).

Once 14C is produced, it combines with oxygen in the atmosphere (12C behaves like 14C and also combines with oxygen) to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Because CO2 gets incorporated into plants (which means the food we eat contains 14C and 12C), all living things should have the same ratio of 14C and 12C in them as in the air we breathe.

How the Carbon-14 Dating Process Works
Once a living thing dies, the dating process begins. As long as an organism is alive it will continue to take in 14C; however, when it dies, it will stop. Since 14C is radioactive (decays into 14N), the amount of 14C in a dead organism gets less and less over time. Therefore, part of the dating process involves measuring the amount of 14C that remains after some has been lost (decayed). Scientists now use a device called an “Accelerator Mass Spectrometer” (AMS) to determine the ratio of 14C to 12C, which increases the assumed accuracy to about 80,000 years. In order to actually do the dating, other things need to be known. Two such things include the following questions:

1.How fast does 14C decay?
2.What was the starting amount of 14C in the creature when it died?
The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of 14C is 5,730 years. For example, a jar starting with all 14C atoms at time zero will contain half 14C atoms and half 14N atoms at the end of 5,730 years (one half-life). At the end of 11,460 years (two half-lives) the jar will contain one-quarter 14C atoms and three-quarter 14N atoms.

Since the half-life of 14C is known (how fast it decays), the only part left to determine is the starting amount of 14C in a fossil. If scientists know the original amount of 14C in a creature when it died, they can measure the current amount and then calculate how many half-lives have passed.

Since no one was there to measure the amount of 14C when a creature died, scientists need to find a method to determine how much 14C has decayed. To do this, scientists use the main isotope of carbon, called carbon-12 (12C). Because 12C is a stable isotope of carbon, it will remain constant; however, the amount of 14C will decrease after a creature dies. All living things take in carbon (14C and 12C) from eating and breathing. Therefore, the ratio of 14C to 12C in living creatures will be the same as in the atmosphere. This ratio turns out to be about one 14C atom for every 1 trillion 12C atoms. Scientists can use this ratio to help determine the starting amount of 14C.

When an organism dies, this ratio (1 to 1 trillion) will begin to change. The amount of 12C will remain constant, but the amount of 14C will become less and less. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. The following illustration demonstrates how the age is estimated using this ratio.

Percent 14C Remaining Percent 12C Remaining  Ratio Number of Half-Lives Years Dead(Age of Fossil)
100 100 1 to 1T 0 0
50 100 1 to 2T 1 5,730
25 100 1 to 4T 2 11,460
12.5 100 1 to 8T 3 17,190
6.25 100 1 to 16T 4 22,920
3.125 100 1 to 32T 5 28,650

T = Trillion

A Critical Assumption
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with this ratio. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.

Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.

In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).

If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle.2
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.

The Specific Production Rate (SPR) of C-14 is known to be 18.8 atoms per gram of total carbon per minute. The Specific Decay Rate (SDR) is known to be only 16.1 disintegrations per gram per minute.3
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.

Magnetic Field of the Earth
Other factors can affect the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere. The earth has a magnetic field around it which helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space. This magnetic field is decaying (getting weaker). The stronger the field is around the earth, the fewer the number of cosmic rays that are able to reach the atmosphere. This would result in a smaller production of 14C in the atmosphere in earth’s past.

The cause for the long term variation of the C-14 level is not known. The variation is certainly partially the result of a change in the cosmic ray production rate of radiocarbon. The cosmic-ray flux, and hence the production rate of C-14, is a function not only of the solar activity but also of the magnetic dipole moment of the Earth.4
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.5
Earth’s magnetic field is fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845, scientists say.6
If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere was less in the past, dates given using the carbon-14 method would incorrectly assume that more 14C had decayed out of a specimen than what has actually occurred. This would result in giving older dates than the true age.

Genesis Flood
What role might the Genesis Flood have played in the amount of carbon? The Flood would have buried large amounts of carbon from living organisms (plant and animal) to form today’s fossil fuels (coal, oil, etc.). The amount of fossil fuels indicates there must have been a vastly larger quantity of vegetation in existence prior to the Flood than exists today. This means that the biosphere just prior to the Flood might have had 500 times more carbon in living organisms than today. This would further dilute the amount of 14C and cause the 14C/12C ratio to be much smaller than today.

If that were the case, and this C-14 were distributed uniformly throughout the biosphere, and the total amount of biosphere C were, for example, 500 times that of today’s world, the resulting C-14/C-12 ratio would be 1/500 of today’s level....7
When the Flood is taken into account along with the decay of the magnetic field, it is reasonable to believe that the assumption of equilibrium is a false assumption.

Because of this false assumption, any age estimates using 14C prior to the Flood will give much older dates than the true age. Pre-Flood material would be dated at perhaps ten times the true age.

The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:

■Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
■Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
■Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
■John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
■Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
■Steven Austin, PhD Geology
■Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
■Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.8 Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.9

Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States. The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C. This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.

These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.

Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.10
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions and are discussed elsewhere11. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange. Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.

The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently.12 Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.

Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.13
Conclusion
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. If the assumptions are accepted as true (as is typically done in the evolutionary dating processes), results can be biased toward a desired age. In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, these evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.

The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils.... Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.

Is this true?  I don't know.  I've read other dissenting opinions and other favoring opinions, but saved this article cause it had the most content to refer to.  

Again I've attached some commentary from a saved article concerning Matthew 16:28:

John would not die before Christ returned -

Atheists claim that there are false prophesies in the Bible, such as the one that predicts that the early saints would be there for Christ's glorious (2nd) coming, and that John would not taste death. This is the specific prophecy that they are referring to:

"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

This prophecy was actually fulfilled in its entirety in the late first century. If you read the book of Revelation, you will see that John, the apostle to whom the prophecy was directed, saw Jesus coming in His glory to establish His kingdom. This is what the entire book of revelation describes - the second coming of Jesus Christ. John saw it all in a vision, as it will happen. The prophecy was fulfilled! The prophecy does not say that John would not die before Christ returned. It said that he would not die before seeing the return of Jesus Christ. What is awesome about the vision reported by John is that he did not understand what he was seeing, but reported it as he saw it. As such, he includes descriptions of a giant meteor collision with the earth, battles with mechanized machines that sound like tanks, and huge armies (200,000,000 men), which would not even be possible until at least the 20th century.



Report to moderator   Logged

lovemonkey
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 7706


Two kinds of people; Those that can extrapolate


View Profile
« Reply #605 on: May 30, 2011, 05:23:57 PM »


Here is an article I have saved:


Wow that's a huge wall of text and I don't have the time to go through all of it.. but some things did stand out

Quote
When a scientist’s interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible. So we should never think it necessary to modify His Word.

This sort of closed mindedness immediately disqualifies them from any sort of scientific discourse. They're saying that their hypothesis is not falsifiable, which makes it in turn a terrible scientific theory. They've obviously set out to 'prove' their own view of the world and not find out any sort of objective truth, whatever it might be.

Quote
Though complex, this history of the earth’s magnetic field agrees with Barnes’ basic hypothesis, that the field has always freely decayed.... The field has always been losing energy despite its variations, so it cannot be more than 10,000 years old.

Proof for this? 100 dollars say that they're talking right out of their asses. The magnetic field of the earth has been proven to shift over time-intervals that far exceeds the one of creationism. On what basis do they make that statement?


Also, carbon dating is not a super precise instrument of dating objects given it's margin of error around about 3% for older objects and it's even bigger for younger objects. This is not by any means new to anyone in the know. But the cool thing here is that the older the object one is trying to date, the more accurate of a reading you get. The margin of error gets progressively smaller the further back on the timescale you're measuring. And we're not talking 5000-700 years back, but up to 50-60000 years.

The article you've quoted really doesn't bring anything new to the table, all it does is taking things out context and twisting(ie fabricating) them to fit their agenda.


Btw, although unrelated to this particular discussion, I'm curios if you've heard of this evolutionary experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It's evolution happening right in front of us.
Report to moderator   Logged

from incomplete data
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14853


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #606 on: May 30, 2011, 05:41:25 PM »

Wow that's a huge wall of text and I don't have the time to go through all of it.. but some things did stand out

This sort of closed mindedness immediately disqualifies them from any sort of scientific discourse. They're saying that their hypothesis is not falsifiable, which makes it in turn a terrible scientific theory. They've obviously set out to 'prove' their own view of the world and not find out any sort of objective truth, whatever it might be.

Proof for this? 100 dollars say that they're talking right out of their asses. The magnetic field of the earth has been proven to shift over time-intervals that far exceeds the one of creationism. On what basis do they make that statement?


Also, carbon dating is not a super precise instrument of dating objects given it's margin of error around about 3% for older objects and it's even bigger for younger objects. This is not by any means new to anyone in the know. But the cool thing here is that the older the object one is trying to date, the more accurate of a reading you get. The margin of error gets progressively smaller the further back on the timescale you're measuring. And we're not talking 5000-700 years back, but up to 50-60000 years.

The article you've quoted really doesn't bring anything new to the table, all it does is taking things out context and twisting(ie fabricating) them to fit their agenda.


Btw, although unrelated to this particular discussion, I'm curios if you've heard of this evolutionary experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

It's evolution happening right in front of us.

No I haven't....don't know a thing about it.  I'll give it a read....hopefully I'll understand it all LOL!!  

Thx
Report to moderator   Logged

Deicide
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 22937


Reapers...


View Profile
« Reply #607 on: May 30, 2011, 07:03:54 PM »



Good post.
Report to moderator   Logged

I hate the State.
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3737



View Profile
« Reply #608 on: May 31, 2011, 07:01:19 AM »

Ya cause Mos really said that every single verse in the Bible has an Archeological site with its name on it    Roll Eyes
  There are 100's of Archeological sites related to the Bible. Where are the giants?, c'mon now...giant bones found all over the place, this isn't even up for debate

To claim Jesus isn't the sun of God, well I can understand where youre coming from, don't agree, but I can understand...To claim a man name Jesus that walked about the first centrury in Palestine_Isreal region didnt exist altogether is outrages

To claim Jesus is the Son of God would require more evidence than stories from a book that has issues. But as I said, I concede that historically, a man called Jesus more than likely existed.
Report to moderator   Logged
Agnostic007
Getbig IV
****
Gender: Male
Posts: 3737



View Profile
« Reply #609 on: May 31, 2011, 07:16:51 AM »

You know, my three favorite bible stories growing up were Samson and Delilah, David and Goliath and Noah’s Ark.  Man, I have wanted my entire life to see the ark found or even part of the ark found, but I don’t know if the gopher wood would last through all those centuries….maybe it would, I don’t know.  That said, we’re left without archeological proof, but we do have geological proof of a worldwide flood in the form of oceanic sediment found at very high elevations and the evidence of fast rock erosion (ex: the Grand Canyon).  Now, we also have some debate over the term “worldwide” in the worldwide flood.  Young earth creationists believe in a definite worldwide flood while theistic evolutionists adhere to a localized mass flood around Mt Ararat and Mespotamia.  They base their claims on the alignment of scripture between Genesis and the Psalms, but that’s a separate topic.  

The rising of the saints in Matthew has been a topic discussed long before I was alive and will persist after I’m gone I’m sure LOL.  I do have earmarked in my favorites some commentary around this and I’ve pasted a portion of that essay based on the verses in Matthew here:
“And the bodies of the saints which slept, arose, and came out of
the graves after His resurrection, and went into the holy city, and
appeared unto many” (Matthew 27:52-53).
Another Calvary miracle was the resurrection of saints that accompanied the
resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our test reveals that “saints who had died” came out of the
graves that had opened three days before. The graves had been opened by the
earthquake at the death of Jesus Christ, and that the dead bodies arose and came out of
them after Christ Himself had risen, and that they went into Jerusalem and appeared
unto many. It is a statement of one of the grandest miracles, a gigantic, supernatural
exploit by God in the sense of being wholly miraculous. This statement that the bodies
arose and went into Jerusalem are self-luminous and their meaning as visible as light.
Not only are these words a part of Scripture, but though the concept of their rising at this time
of Christ’s death is so interlaced with Scripture that it could not but be there.
These saints coming out of the grave stands in line with the miraculous events of
the happenings at Calvary. It harmonizes with and explains the wonder of the opened
graves, just as that wonder was the product of the wondrous earthquake, and the
earthquake was the counterpart of the wondrous rending of the veil, that rending of the
veil answered back to the shout of victory from the Cross whose dying sufferer had just
emerged in triumph out of the almighty horrors of the symbolic darkness!
The resurrection of these saints, like the first fruit of the Jewish harvest, was an expressive
pledge of the coming general resurrection, when, from all the graveyards of the world,
wherever the mortal remains of a saint may lie, “this corruptible shall put on incorruption,
and this mortal immortality!” Our body that “is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is
sown in weakness; it is raised in power: It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body.
There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body” (1 Corinthians 15:53; 43-44).
Matthew tells the story of wonder, “departed saints arose, and left their graves and
went into Jerusalem, and appeared to many” And he says nothing more. Did they to into the
houses of the people or only walked the streets? Did they appear only once, or from
time to time during the forty days of the Lord’s appearing after His resurrection.
Matthew doesn’t say. How they were affected by their return to this life; whether they
spoke of the realms of the dead or of the recent entrance of Christ into those realms; how
and when they finally disappeared or whither they went, on all these topics not a word,
not so much as the faintest recognition of the possibility of such questions being asked.
No merely human pen, having said so much, could have said so little.
Matthew tells us, “They appeared unto many.” Why should they appear except to
be recognized and identified? However, Moses and Elijah wee recognized by the
disciples at the transfiguration although they had never seen either one of them before.
The Holy Spirit is able to make known to one another those who before were strangers.
He is able to do it as easily and quietly as the light shines or as a new thought comes
into the mind.

The Nile turning to blood I’ve never actually questioned before given the supernatural nature of this situation.  I simply can’t talk to it, but if I come across any other literature I’ll be sure and pass it on.

The murder of the infant boys by King Herod was simply not a significant enough situation to be noted by historians.  Some speaks of thousands being murdered, but the actuality is that the small population in this small community would have amounted to dozens not thousands.  Now, is the act in and of itself horrific?   No doubt, but the illustration of this death of innocents in Matthews is about noting the fulfilling of prophecy outlined in the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament.  
"Thus says the LORD, 'A voice is heard in Ramah, Lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; She refuses to be comforted for her children, Because they are no more.' "
Jeremiah 31:15  

I assume the giants you’re referring to are the Annakites (sons of Annak) or the Philistine Goliath and his brother?  I can’t speak at any length in terms of archeological finds, but I do understand that large fossiled human remains have been found….I can’t say any more than that caused I’m in no way versed in the topic.  The height of Goliath has been a point of debate since some OT manuscripts note his height at 6’9” vs the traditionally recognized 9’9” (I believe or maybe it’s 9’6”….either way it’s enormous).  The exact measurements have been points of debate, but most bibles in print today footnote this possible discrepancy (most don’t read footnotes though).  Archeologists and historians have noted that the average height of men in the OT was shorter than the average today; therefore, a 6’9” man would appear as a giant let alone a 9’6” or 9’9” man.

I have nothing to add on the subject of early Old Testament figures living to be as old as 900 years and no other proof to provide other than that of the OT.  I honestly can’t provide any other nonbiblical proof on the 900 year old figures in the Old Testament folks anymore than I could provide proof for the actual existence of a 900 year old Yoda from Star Wars, but I still believe in the inerrancy of the bible and have faith in these astonishing scriptures (I know, I know….faith-based conclusions are meaningless to an agnostic or an atheist).  

In terms of historical scholarship, a 30-year span of documentation after an event is an extremely close timeframe for the validation of an event.  Others biograpies written about numerous other historical figures have occurred hundreds of years after their actual lifetimes and the historicity of the written accounts simply aren't in question.  There are literally thousands of NT manuscripts that all corroborate the same NT claims written in very shorts spans after the actual events that help validate historicity.

Saul of Tarsus was a known Christian hunter and hated all things Christian.  On the road to Damascus Saul was encountered by the resurrected Christ:
Acts 22:6-11 (New King James Version)
6 “Now it happened, as I journeyed and came near Damascus at about noon, suddenly a great light from heaven shone around me. 7 And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?’ 8 So I answered, ‘Who are You, Lord?’ And He said to me, ‘I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting.’
9 “And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid,[a] but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. 10 So I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Arise and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all things which are appointed for you to do.’ 11 And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus.

Saul of Tarsus became Paul the Apostle and arguably the greatest advocate for the resurrected Christ and Christianity the world has ever known.  The Pauline letters to the various churches in the New Testament are monumental Christian writings and validate not only the resurrected Christ via eyewitness in Paul, but fully illustrate the transforming power of the risen God.

Josephus was a 1st century Jewish historian that documented the existence of Jesus Christ.  The 4th century writings you mention are a variant Greek translation of the original 1st century writings determined by noted scholar Alice Whealey.  They don’t invalidate the original 1st century writings, but provide a variant from a 4th century text.  The existence of Christ Jesus is not in question.

I agree on all commentary concerning the philosophical aspect.  Since they in no way invalidate the resurrected Christ and his gift of salvation I have no problem and nothing further to add.

The idea of flawed carbon dating is new science in the realm of young creationists.  It’s a hotly contested position by theistic evolutionists who also belief in the resurrected Christ, but don’t agree with young creationists.  Like my atheist and agnostic brothers and sisters often comment, we just haven’t found the definite scientific method with which we all agree upon…..but we will in time.

I’m glad that we can discuss these topics openly and without slinging insults….that says a lot about your character.  Disagreement and insult are two very different things.  We may disagree but we have no reason to hate each other or belittle each other….I respect that.








Like we've said before, it is a great thing to discuss differences of opinion in a civil matter. I enjoy it a lot. I read you're excerpt about dead saints rising and walking through the city to be seen by many. Honestly it uses a lot of words to really say nothing. The glaring problem still exists.. the bible says dead saints arouse from their graves and went into the city and appeared to many. In all of history, only one person thought it important enough to comment on it.. Matthew. His comment is the ONLY evidence of such a miraculous event. I'm sorry, but that just falls way to short for me as evidence. The fact no historian ever commented on such an event speaks volumes. In a related note, the fact no chinese historian, who we have numerous records of, never mentions the sun stopping in the sky and what we know about the universe now, tends to destroy any credibility of the old testament author who says different.

On a side note, without cheating..... who cut Samons hair? 
Report to moderator   Logged
Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14853


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #610 on: May 31, 2011, 07:57:27 AM »

Like we've said before, it is a great thing to discuss differences of opinion in a civil matter. I enjoy it a lot. I read you're excerpt about dead saints rising and walking through the city to be seen by many. Honestly it uses a lot of words to really say nothing. The glaring problem still exists.. the bible says dead saints arouse from their graves and went into the city and appeared to many. In all of history, only one person thought it important enough to comment on it.. Matthew. His comment is the ONLY evidence of such a miraculous event. I'm sorry, but that just falls way to short for me as evidence. The fact no historian ever commented on such an event speaks volumes. In a related note, the fact no chinese historian, who we have numerous records of, never mentions the sun stopping in the sky and what we know about the universe now, tends to destroy any credibility of the old testament author who says different.

On a side note, without cheating..... who cut Samons hair?  

Without cheating LOL?  I don't get it; anyways, when Samson feel asleep Delilah called for someone to cut his hair....a servant of hers I guess.  Story is in the OT book of Judges.

Report to moderator   Logged

Man of Steel
Moderator
Getbig V
*****
Gender: Male
Posts: 14853


Isaiah 40:28-31 ✝


View Profile WWW
« Reply #611 on: May 31, 2011, 08:27:51 AM »

Without cheating LOL?  I don't get it; anyways, when Samson feel asleep Delilah called for someone to cut his hair....a servant of hers I guess.  Story is in the OT book of Judges.



Just because I know how much you fellas appreciate this banter I provided some extra context around the "Who cut Samson's hair?" situation:

NOTES AND READINGS
Who Cut Samson's Hair?
(And Other Trifling Issues Raised by Judges 16)
rna che una femminella habbia possanza
di condurti agli errori,
non e colpa di Rege, 0 Semideo.
E un misfatto plebeo.
Monteverdi, Poppe a, I, ix
The scene which interests me is found in Judges 16.1 Delilah means to
barter the secret of Samson's strength for enormous sums of money. She tries
to coax it out of her lover; and even when leading her falsely, Samson is getting
her nearer the truth. He easily snaps the fresh bowstrings which are supposed
to keep him bound (Delilah may have hoped that there was magic in the
freshness of the ropes or rather in the number of bowstrings-seven, the same
as the sum of his hairlocks). He then similarly treats the unused ropes. She
presses on, and this time he enjoins her to manipulate his hair, the source of his
strength: were she to weave his hair-we can't really figure how-he would
lose his power. She does; but he, of course, does not. Yet she has only to ask one
more time before the terrible mystery is hers to solve. At verses 19-20, we turn
to three recent translations of the Hebrew:
New English Bible
She lulled him to sleep
on her knees,
summoned a man and
he shaved the seven
locks of his hair for
her. She began to take
him captive and his
strength left him.
Then she cried, "the
Philistines are upon
you, Samson!" He
woke from his
sleep .. . .
Nevi'im (JPS2)
She lulled him to sleep
on her lap. Then she
called in a man, and
she had him cut the
seven locks of his
head; thus she
weakened him and
made him helpless; his
strength slipped away
from him. She cried,
"Samson, the
Philistines are upon
you!" And he awoke
from his sleep . . . .
Anchor Bible
She put him to sleep
with his head on her
lap and called to the
man. She snipped off
the seven braids of his
head. Then she began
to torment him; his
strength had left him.
When she said,
"Philistines are upon
you, Samson!" he
awoke from his
sleep . . .
PROOFTEXTS 5 (1988): 333-346 @ 1988 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
334 NOTES AND READINGS
Most of the other English renderings offer minor variations to these
examples. Let's look at how each differs in the various phrases. NEB and
Nevi'im agree in how they translate the first phrase, y':;rp.-' mo/!T;11. NEB is
too literal with "knees," perhaps, but since it is not likely that anyone would
imagine Delilah falling on her knees, begging Samson to fall asleep, the
translation should not cause problems. AB, however, worries about the
reader's comprehension and adds "with his head on her lap."
The verb llU' to sleep, does not take a direct object and it operates as an
adjectival verb, that is, it tells you about the condition of the subjects rather
than about the action they take. When such verbs are conjugated in the D-stem
(piel), they often acquire a factitive quality, allowing the subject to control the
action, but the action itself affects another. Although the D-stem of llU' is
unique to our passage, its meaning is not difficult to gauge: "Delilah brought
Samson to sleep." While the passage tells us where Samson fell asleep, -,
y'l:;t, it does not necessarily explain how Delilah managed her feat. The LXX
(Septuagint) apparently knew how, for its reading presupposes a y'l:;t-P
(unattested to in the MT [Masoretic Text]) which, because it is reminiscent of
Y'7111' of the famous Yael and Sisera episode (Jud. 5:27), can suggest a postcoital
torpor. Y'l:;t-'' however, is where the Shunnamite placed her sick child
(2 Kings 4:20) and the circumstance here is sexually innocent. I do not want to
imply that Delilah rocked Samson to a Philistine version of Brahms' lullaby; but
I think that the phrase Y'l:;t-' mO/T;11 poses a problem that requires further
elaboration.
It is commonly assumed that Delilah is, if not a prostitute, at least a
courtesan. But the text has little to say about this. We don't even know
whether she is Philistine or not, for the Sorek valley edged Danite and
Philistine territories. Her name, whatever its meaning, follows excellent
Semitic construction. We presume that the storyteller does not want us to
think her Hebrew, but only because Samson is destined to choose only
foreigners (14:4). It is true that Samson was involved with a Gaza prostitute in
the episode just preceding (16:1-4). On that occasion, however, we are not told
of Samson's feeling towards the woman; he seems to have sought her purely to
gratify his sexual urge. The visit was all business, lasted until midnight and was
probably not repeated. However, this particular scene served the storyteller
well, for it allowed him to relate one more anecdote about Samson's strength.
Samson's feelings towards women proves to be shallow even in that dolorous
and drawn-out occasion when he sought to marry a Timna woman. To his
parents, he confides only that "1 find her attractive '':;J. iTl1P K'iT':;l; (14:3, and
also 7)."2 Nothing profounder than sexual drive ever binds Samson to his wife
and "love," the emotion, is neither directed to someone nor is it reciprocated; it
is cited only when the woman from Timna accuses Samson of lacking it (14:16).
When involved with Delilah, however, Samson is in love, and befitting this
unique display of his feeling, Delilah is the only woman in the Samson
narratives to bear a name (even Samson's mother is nameless). Now, surprising
as it may seem, when applied to human beings, the vocabulary for love-that is
the root aheb and its derivatives-is used very sparingly in Hebrew narratives.
Moreover, its terminology is not homogeneous in usage. Isaac and Rebeccah,
Jacob and Rachel and Elkanah and Hannah are the only married couples
4;* 4 $ 2. § ( ,t 4# ILA ;; , ; g i
Prooft exts 335
wherein husbands are said to harbor love for their spouses. Jacob, of course,
loved Rachel as soon as he saw her and Michal loved David at first sight too, but
with less than happy results. Ahasuerus and Rehoboam, respectively, are said
to love Esther and Maacah more than other women. Solomon loved many, but
apparently not one with devotion. We have two occasions in which love led to
abuse of women: when Hamor loved Dinah, and when Amnon harbored a
passion for his sister.3 Samson's love for Delilah never has a chance to find a
full response, for she is but an instrument in a game in which God had
something to prove.
The storyteller's readiness to betray the intensity of Samson's feeling for
Delilah, however, allows us better to set the scene in which Samson finally
gives up his secret. Unlike the previous occasions in which time was either too
diffuse (Samson and the woman from Timna) or without consequence to the
action (Samson and the whore of Gaza), once Delilah is commissioned by the
Philistines to uncover Samson's secret, all subsequent relationship between
them occurs within the selfsame day. In the first two instances where Samson
leads Delilah astray, the story does not even bother to tell us whether he is
asleep or not. It may be that he closes his eyes long enough for the Philistines to
hand Delilah what she needs, but the storyteller evidently does not think it
necessary to share with us further information on Samson's wakefulness and
the Philistines are not brought back on stage until after Samson is shaved. Even
during the third episode, when the LXX found it necessary to speak of
Samson's sleep, the Hebrew text says only that Samson awakens to find his
hair woven.
As Delilah strives once more to discover his secret, we learn why the
storyteller needed to tell us of Samson's love. Contrasting the earlier episode
where Samson is accused of harboring hate rather than love for the woman
from Timna, on this occasion Delilah can refer to love as an emotion that is
indeed Samson's. "How can you say, 'I love you,'" she protests, "when you do
not confide in me?" The text tells us that Delilah repeats her plea tlr,liJ-'
which is usually translated, "every day," "daily," or "day after day." This is
presumably because of the Timna circumstance that is deemed parallel (14:17-
18). But tlr,liJ-' merely refers to an act that is repeated regularly, regardless
of how long the repetition takes before it ends (see BOB 400, 7,£); it could take
months; it could end in minutes. In fact, it is a much better scene to have
Delilah harping on this accusation over one afternoon than to have it spread
over days or weeks. I offer two arguments to bolster this opinion, one internal
to the story, the other comparative.
When Delilah addresses Samson for the first time, she rephrases the
Philistines' request, without noticing how incongruous such words are when
addressed to a lover. The request includes three separate components: 1. "what
makes you strong?" 2. "what would bind you?" 3. "so that you could be
weakened." These three elements are never brought together again in any of
the subsequent queries. Thus, in the second and third episodes only "what
would bind you?" appears, while the fourth features only "what makes you
strong?" Yet each one of Samson's responses (but the third which is highly
apocopated4) requires us to presume all three components as sous-entendues. Such
a presumption is most natural if there is temporal unity to our scene.
336 NOTES AND READINGS
The second argument requires me to turn to one of two demotic tales
relating the adventures of prince Setne Khamwas and his son Si-Osiris: "Setne
Khamwas and Naneferkaptah."5 I need not detail the various episodes in which
this prince tries to find ultimate secrets in hidden books (some of which
probably inspired Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark), but in one of his many
adventures, Setne falls in violent lust for T abubu. Daughter of the prophet of
Bastet though she may be, the woman is actually for hire, but at the highest
price. Tabubu does not surrender to Setne, but at successive moments demands
from him his fortune, his property, and finally, the death of his own children.
The sordid depth to which Setne sinks when seeking Tabubu's favor is
brilliantly portrayed; but his condition acquires poignancy because it all
happens in one evening's surrender to passion.
Setne is spared facing the consequences of his own obsession, because
Tabubu, it turns out, is but a nightmare. It is otherwise for Samson who, once
he discloses his God-ordained secret to Delilah, has to face a reality that is all
too horrible. To her who had accused him of not confiding in her N;1 p-!j: :P71)
he tells everything (t:l7-7-I1 i1?-'1), radically altering his own future.
The translations which I give above begin to fidget at this point. As is
common to Hebrew narrative style, if subjects are to control more than one
verb in a single scene, they are most often made to control a sequence of three
verbs. This must have been the Masorites' own feeling about our passage, for
.they punctuated verse 19a accordingly: they broke it into three distinct parts,
placing major disjunctive accents (Zaqeph qaton), each over iTI::,l. and w' and
then a major verse divider (Atnah) under lWXi. (I shall come back to the rest of
the verse presently.) NEB's translation is here least committed to this tripling
rule: Delilah lulls Samson to sleep and summons a man who, in turn, becomes
the subject of the third (emended) verb. Delilah returns as subject in 19b.
Nevi'im OPS2) has her lulling Samson to sleep, then calling in a man whom she
has cut Samson's hair. AB has Delilah putting Samson to sleep and calling a
man who is left with nothing to do, for Delilah ends up wielding the razor. AB,
however, is the most faithful to the Hebrew.
The Hebrew reads: ilLlxi I1ilJ7r;ll;l l1W-I1 n?m ILI'? X1R1'l1 and we need
to look at the second verb before coming back to the first. Legalleab occurs only
in the D (Piel) and HtD (Hithpael) stems. In the D, it most often controls a
direct object, but once it is reflexive (Genesis 41:14). In the absence of scissors
in the ancient Near East, razors are commonly used, and hence it would be
more accurate to render by "shaving" or "cutting" the hair rather than
"snipping" it, although we are not required to imagine Delilah lovingly soaping
the hair before running her blade on the scalp.6 What is important to note is
that in all of its occurrences, the verb never bears a causative or even factitive
meaning, hence if there is shaving to be done, it must be by Delilah. It is of
course possible to emend the verbal form into *wayyegallab. and thus have the
man as subject; but this would be a rather desperate measure to force the text
into saying what we think happened in the story. It is also possible to revocalize
into a causative stem (*wattagleab.), in order to have Delilah make someone
shave Samson; but the resulting form is not likely for this verb in Hebrew.
Therefore, Delilah must be given full responsibility for her act, and we
should reject the renderings of NEB and Nevi'im. Once we do this, we are left
in the AB's quandary, what to do with the man whom Delilah summons?
i I' : I
Prooflexls 337
Now if there is a man to summon, we cannot pull him out from among the
Philistines who are awaiting word that his strength is indeed gone. To begin
with, the language is different. The word which has been used previously, oreb, is
normally used in Hebrew to speak of a group of ambushers; here we are
mentioning a single individual, tl7l:t. Furthermore, the sequence would be all
wrong here. In the two previous occasions, these gentlemen are summoned affer
Delilah acts to neutralize Samson. Thus in verses 9-10, Delilah ties Samson
with the bowstrings and, as the ambushers lie in wait, she awakes her lover. In
verse 12, we again find Delilah calling to the ambushers after she binds
Samson. Finally, to bring the man from among the Philistines in wait would
compromise a minor motif within this chapter, which has to do with the
distance the Philistines kept between themselves and Samson, even as they
searched for instruments to physically control him. Because of the frequent
drubbings Samson handed them, the Philistines have learned to be cautious. At
every one of Delilah's three previous warnings to Samson about an imminent
attack, no Philistine was ready to pounce on the shackled Samson. Therefore, we
have reason to doubt that any of them would heroically break out from hiding
in order to help Delilah shear an unfettered Samson.
In fact, there is reason to doubt that any throng of Philistines was close to
Delilah's boudoir when she finally loosens the secret from Samson! To my
mind, one of the more interesting aspects of Delilah's involvement with
Samson is that her credibility with the Philistines progressively weakens even
as her influence on Samson grows. While they are first to approach with
promises of enormous fortunes and prOVide her with fresh bowstrings with
which to bind Samson, Delilah is left to her own devices from then on. Perhaps
they had come to doubt Delilah's success; it is more likely, however, that the
narrator wants to sharpen our focus on the relationship between Samson and
Delilah and has therefore resolved to leave the scene uncluttered. It is only
after she is convinced of her own mastery of the situation that she sends for
them and that the Philistines show up, money in hand; but this time around
they do not necessarily stay close to their nemesis. In fact, even after he is
shorn of his strength, Samson must be allotted this space in which to become
aware of his impotence and the Philistines ought not intrude to spoil the
discovery scene by their presence. They, in fact, come back into the foreground
at verse 21.
Who is the man, then, that Delilah is calling? And what is he to do for her?
Boling, who wrote the commentary on Judges for the AB series, is one of many
who wonder whether the man brought her the razor or assisted her in cutting
the hair. But what was he doing until that moment? Is he there to report on the
weakening of Samson, or will he serve as punching-bag, alerting the others to
Delilah's failure? Perhaps he was merely an acolyte to a Levantine maithuna,
watching and serving the two as they made love? A kinky scene that has its
merits, I must admit; but definitely one to waste the effort of a teller, who is
normally parsimonious with characters without future.
My colleague Gary A. Herion, who subtly shades his appreciation of
Scripture's literary quality, thinks that the narrator may be ambushing the
reader by introducing a character unexpectedly. Plot becomes subordinate to
effect as the audience is startled by the vocabulary for the unexpected presence;
338 NOTES AND READINGS
and it is this response that the teller is seeking in order to better channel the
attention towards Samson's predicament.
This might well be so, but I find the proposal overly subtle. My own
inclination is to propose that the man, in fact, does not exist. The second of
Delilah's acts is 1Lf!:t7 rqp.t;11. In Hebrew, the verb x-,p means to utter a sound;
but to determine how that sound is functioning, a preposition is needed to
control that verb. True, when the preposition le- is involved, the resulting idiom
does mean "to summon"; but it can also mean merely to shout to someone. In
our passage, this someone is given to us as 1Lf!:t, "man." The Masorites have
vocalized the word as 1Lf!:t7' "to the man," and not to "a(ny) man," ("le'is). This
"man" therefore is not referring to an unknown person, but has as antecedent
the series of pronominal suffixes alluding to the only male who is featured in
our story: Samson himself.7 In Hebrew such a distribution of nouns and
antecedents is not syntactically obtuse; but it may help us recognize the
structure better if we transpose 1Lf!:t and the third person masculine singular
pronominal suffix that occurs last: '7 X'1P.t;11ILf'!:tiTI1 lWT;11* etc. . . .
Delilah, in sum, shouts at Samson; and reassured by how deeply he sleeps,
she wields the razor. 8
A few more words remain to be said about the rest of the sentence. 7Q-01
'I1iJl!? serves to bind Judges 16 into a whole, and the verbal form need not be
emended (as proposed by Nevi'im and others). iI11Jll? runs through the Delilah
episode and we first meet with it when the Philistines declare their intention to
imprison and abuse Samson. It is picked up by Delilah and serves as the third
component of her initial query. This twofold repetition within two verses
serves the narrator well, for it allows him to comment on the degree that a
lovestruck Samson foolishly refuses to be warned about Delilah. The masculine
version of the form 7n' occurs in 22, allowing us an insight not available to
Samson during his long gestation in a Philistine prison: Even as Delilah is
shearing Samson's hair, God has decided to restore him to grace. Therefore, by
following the Masoretic punctuation, I arrive at this rendering of the passage:
Bringing him to sleep on her lap, she called to the man [Samson], then
began to cut the seven braids on his hair. Delilah started to weaken him,
and his strength slipped away from him. When she yelled, "Philistines are
attacking you, Samson," he shook off his sleep and thought, "This time too,
I will come out of this by breaking free," obviously not realizing that God
had turned away from him.
The Philistines seized him and gouged his eyes out; they brought him
to Gaza and chained him with bronze fetters. In prison, he became a
grinder of grain. But his hair started to grow as he was being shaved.
JACK M. SASSON
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


If you need the footnotes I can cut and paste those as well.

Yes, the all the bibles I currently own indicate that Delilah called for someone else to cut Samson's hair, but apparently there are controversies (I'm shocked LOL!!).  Apparently a more literal translation of the Hebrew indicates that Delilah herself cut Samson's hair.  I wonder if anyone knows the name of the donkey that Samson used the jawbone from to defend himself and defeat a 1000 men with?
Report to moderator   Logged

no parole
Getbig I
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #612 on: June 03, 2011, 04:05:28 PM »

   My testimony alone is not sufficient, it's just my personal relationship and experience


That's a start. You are at least beginning to show signs that what you have to put all out here on the table is just wishful thinking. I believe someday that you will come to terms with all of this and see that it's all nonsense, you are a bright individual.

 
Quote
Another tremendous difference is that the Islamic god Allah is far removed and impersonal from his followers.....a bit ironic given this equivalent state of passion you mentioned. 

They are just as devoted to their beliefs, which is my point. It can be to the point of insanity, such as suicide bombings in radical cases. You could have your head cut off if you went to Mecca and stated the Islamic god Allah is far removed and impersonal from his followers. That is just not true my friend.
Report to moderator   Logged
no parole
Getbig I
*
Posts: 11


View Profile
« Reply #613 on: June 03, 2011, 04:16:00 PM »

To claim Jesus is the Son of God would require more evidence than stories from a book that has issues. But as I said, I concede that historically, a man called Jesus more than likely existed.

I've read that during the era of Jesus, there were around 20 or so notable Jewish historians of his time, none mention his name.This was a person that drew crowds of thousands and stirred great controversy with authoritative people. All the sermons, the miracles performed, the trail, the crucifixion - nothing was ever mentioned of this or of Jesus.
Report to moderator   Logged
loco
Getbig V
*****
Posts: 8917

Getbig!


View Profile
« Reply #614 on: June 06, 2011, 06:57:06 AM »

I've read that during the era of Jesus, there were around 20 or so notable Jewish historians of his time, none mention his name.This was a person that drew crowds of thousands and stirred great controversy with authoritative people. All the sermons, the miracles performed, the trail, the crucifixion - nothing was ever mentioned of this or of Jesus.

Who were these 20 notable Jewish historians?
Report to moderator   Logged
Onetimehard
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 13597


Jasher


View Profile
« Reply #615 on: June 06, 2011, 07:06:05 AM »

Often we think all the witnesses to Jesus Christ are found in the Bible. There are several early statements made by non-Christians that bear witness to Him. These are given below.

1. Emperor Tiberitus (14-37) or Claudius (41-54) issued an edict against grave robbing. An inscription of it was found in Nazareth. It reads:


"Ordinances of Caesar, it is my pleasure that graves and tombs remain undisturbed in perpetuity for those who have made them for the cult of their ancestors or children or members of their house. If however any man lay information that another has either demolished them, or has in any other way extracted the buried, or has maliciously transferred them to other places in order to wrong them, or has displaced the sealing of other stones, against such one I order that a trial be instituted, as in respect of the gods, so in regard to the cult of mortals. For it shall be much more obligatory to honor the buried. Let it be absolutely forbidden for anyone to disturb them, in case of contravention I desire that the offender be sentenced to capital punishment on charge of violation of sepuiture."
Before this time punishment would had been mild. Why was it changed to death? We know this decreed was soon after Christ's resurrection. Was it due to a reaction against the turmoil in Israel caused His resurrection?

2. Josephus (A.D. 37-100), the Jewish historian, would wrote a generation after Jesus Christ, makes several references to people well-known to New Testament readers. F. F. Bruce summarized the evidence:


"Here, in the pages of Josephus, we meet many figures who are well known to us from the New Testament; the colorful family of the Herods; the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, and the procurators of Judea; the high priestly families--Annas, Caiaphas, Ananias, and the rest; the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and so on" (F. F. Bruce, New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? p.104.)
He wrote explicitly about Jesus:


"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. . . . Pilate condemned Him to be condemned and to die. And those who had become His disciples did not abandon His discipleship. They reported that He had appeared to them three days after His crucifixion and that He was alive; accordingly, He was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders" (Antiquities, xviii.ch. 3, subtopic 3, Arabic text).
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew ever to him both many of the Jews, and many Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestions of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to be condemned and to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not foesake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and the ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day" (Antiquities, xviii.ch. 3, subtopic 3, Greek text).

Note: The above are disputed passages, especially the second one. Josephus writing were handed down through Christian scribes. No Jew cared for this Jew turned Roman General. Since Josephus was not a Christian it is unlikely statement like "if it be lawful to call him a man ," "he was the Christ," etc. Surely words were added to these statements, especially to the second one. No unbelieving Jew would made such statements about Jesus.

Josephus also wrote about James, the brother of Jesus.

"(Ananus) assembled the sanhedrin of the judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he deliever them to be stoned" (Antiquities XX 9:1).
3. Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55?-after 117), the Roman Historian, wrote of Nero's attempt to relieve himself of the guilt of burning Rome:


"Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also" (Annals XV.44).
4. Lucian (second century), Greek Satirist, alludes to Christ in these words:


"The man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world. . . . Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws" (On the Death of Peregrine).
5. Suetonius (c. A.D. 120), a Roman Historian and court official under Hadrian made two references to Christ. In the Life of Claudius (25.4) he wrote


"As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chestus [another spelling of Christus or Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from Rome."
In the Lives of the Caesars (26.2) he wrote:


"Punishment by Nero was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition."
6. Pliny the Younger (c. A.D. 112), when writing to the emperor about his achievements as governor of Bithynia, wrote how he had killed multitudes of Christian men, women, and children. He wrote:


"All who denied that they were or had been Christians I consider should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence, with incense and wine, your [the emperor's] image . . . they curse Christ, which a genuine Christian cannot be induced to do" (Epistles, X.96).
He also wrote in the same letter:


"[Christians} were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verse of a hymn to Christ as to a god, and bound themselves to a solemn oath, not to do any wicked deeds, and never to deny a truth when they should be called upon to deliver it up."
7. Thallus (c. A.D. 52) was a Samaritan-born historian. Julius Africanus (c. A.D. 221) wrote:


"Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away this darkness [at the time of the crucifixion] as an eclipse of the sun-unreasonably, as it seems to me."
This was unreasonable, of course, because a solar eclipse could not take place at the time of the full moon, and it was the time of the paschal full moon when Christ died.

8. Mara Bar Serapion (after A.D. 73) wrote a letter that now resides in the British Museum. According to F. F. Bruce it was written by a father to his son in prison. In the letter he compares the deaths of Socrates, Pythagoras, and Jesus:


"What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. . . . But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given" (Bruce, op. cit., p.14).
9. The Jewish Talmud was completed by A.D. 500. The Babylonian Talmud reference to Jesus:


"On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and them herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defense come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defense and hanged him on the eve of Passover" (Sanhedrin 43a, "Eve of Passover").
R. Shimeon ben' Azzai wrote concerning Jesus:


"I found a genealogical roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress" (Yeb. IV 3; 49 a).
In summary, there are several reference to Jesus made by non-Christians. Only those made by Josephus are open to question since they were handed down through Christian scribes. The others were handed down through Roman/Latin scribes and are likely accurate copies of these writings.

by Leland M. Haines, Northville, Michigan USA. December 1997.
Copyright 1997 by Leland M. Hines, Northville, Mich.

This page is from http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html

You are welcome to make copies of this page provided you do not sell them and give the source, http://www.bibleviews.com/non-biblical.html .




Report to moderator   Logged
Onetimehard
Competitors II
Getbig V
******
Gender: Male
Posts: 13597


Jasher


View Profile
« Reply #616 on: June 06, 2011, 07:09:08 AM »

Who were these 20 notable Jewish historians?
I think he mis-read the part that said "didn't mention" Cool I think what it said was "did mention" Grin
Report to moderator   Logged
probound2
Getbig II
**
Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #617 on: July 28, 2011, 09:24:54 PM »

I've read that during the era of Jesus, there were around 20 or so notable Jewish historians of his time, none mention his name.This was a person that drew crowds of thousands and stirred great controversy with authoritative people. All the sermons, the miracles performed, the trail, the crucifixion - nothing was ever mentioned of this or of Jesus.


What do you make of the calendar using Jesus as a source?
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 ... 23 24 [25]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Theme created by Egad Community. Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!