do you believe in jesus? (505)
Dr_HfuhruhurrCork, Ireland15 Threads 1 Polls 987 Postsi was meaning to thumb up the person who believed the existance but not that he was the son of god
reneldo: We only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
More copy and paste without quoting the source.
reneldo: We only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
Close,but NO Cigar!When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
Jesus is God! Came down from His glory, born into flesh to redeem us of our sins... Thank You Jesus
pauldavid68: in an ever changing world, i just wonder if people believe in jesus.
I believe in Jesus!! He came down from His glory, born into flesh to redeem us of our sins... Halleluia! Thank You Jesus. Gotta Keep on keeping on for the Lord!!
bodleing: More copy and paste without quoting the source.
The Bible and the Qua'ran, An Historical Perspective, section B "THE BIBLE'S MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE" by Jay Smith; see online at debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm...
Now, what wilt thou do with this information? We shall see.
Yes I believe in our savior Jesus.
Conrad73: Close,but NO Cigar!
maybe that's because i don't smoke
theoldestdear:
Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms and each new piece of evidence tests the rest(Theobald 2004):
•All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
•Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
•Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
•Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms and each new piece of evidence tests the rest(Theobald 2004):
•All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
•Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
•Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
•Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Of the points above, I don’t dispute the first three. But the interesting thing about them is that they easily fit the theory of design. None of them point exclusively to the idea that they HAD to gradually evolve to exist the way they do. The question here is “was it common ancestry or common design.
For example, a fish and a submarine are alike in some ways; they both have tails, move underwater, and so on. The facts are: they are similar in many ways.
Now assume the premise:
“Similarity equals common ancestry.” With all the right facts, (the noted similarities), we decide therefore that the fish is a highly-advanced, miniaturized great-nephew of the submarine. This is no doubt offensive to fishes as well as common sense, but facts are facts!
Change your premise to:
“Similarity equals common design,” and with the same set of facts you see something very different. Both fish and submarines were DESIGNED TO WORK UNDERWATER. One designed by Man, one by Man’s Creator. With the right facts but a wrong premise,
you can come up with the wrong answer for all the right reasons.
What about DNA?
A lot of people like to point to the fact that the DNA of a chimpanzee is 96 % similar as proof that we have common ncestry. But what about everything else? The DNA in bananas are 50% similar to our DNA, are you saying we are half banana?
Now as to your fourth point of “several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.” I would call that highly speculative at best.
“Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, we defined?” Charles Darwin
“Scientist who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T.N. Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.
theoldestdear:
Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms and each new piece of evidence tests the rest(Theobald 2004):
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms and each new piece of evidence tests the rest(Theobald 2004):
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Your post goes on to be very informative and educational, but falls short of proving its point. I agree we should work with facts. The question remains as to where those facts lead. You state that the facts you listed above confirm a common descent of evolution, that the evidence point to common ancestry. But you refuse to consider that those same facts could be used in an argument for common design. That the reason everything seems so common is because they were designed that way. Everything seems to have evolved in such an ordered fashion. I will spare you the whole “fine-tuning” or Anthropic Principle debate, but it would seem that evolution would lead to a world a bit more chaotic (though I have a hard time imagining a world more chaotic than this one). Of course evolutionist have always has a difficult time arguing against the second law of thermal dynamics, which states that, over time, order gives way to disorder and complexity breaks down to less complex. Not the other way around.
theoldestdear: I meant in space!!!
first amino acid on a comet 17 August 2009 by Maggie McKee
For similar stories, visit the Comets and Asteroids and Astrobiology Topic Guides
An amino acid has been found on a comet for the first time, a new analysis of samples from NASA's Stardust mission reveals. The discovery confirms that some of the building blocks of life were delivered to the early Earth from space.
Amino acids are crucial to life because they form the basis of proteins, the molecules that run cells. The acids form when organic, carbon-containing compounds and water are zapped with a source of energy, such as photons – a process that can take place on Earth or in space.
Previously, researchers have found amino acids in space rocks that fell to Earth as meteorites, and tentative evidence for the compounds has been detected in interstellar space. Now, an amino acid called glycine has been definitively traced to an icy comet for the first time.
"It's not necessarily surprising, but it's very satisfying to find it there because it hasn't been observed before," says Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, lead author of the new study. "It's been looked for [on comets] spectroscopically with telescopes but the content seems so low you can't see it that way."
first amino acid on a comet 17 August 2009 by Maggie McKee
For similar stories, visit the Comets and Asteroids and Astrobiology Topic Guides
An amino acid has been found on a comet for the first time, a new analysis of samples from NASA's Stardust mission reveals. The discovery confirms that some of the building blocks of life were delivered to the early Earth from space.
Amino acids are crucial to life because they form the basis of proteins, the molecules that run cells. The acids form when organic, carbon-containing compounds and water are zapped with a source of energy, such as photons – a process that can take place on Earth or in space.
Previously, researchers have found amino acids in space rocks that fell to Earth as meteorites, and tentative evidence for the compounds has been detected in interstellar space. Now, an amino acid called glycine has been definitively traced to an icy comet for the first time.
"It's not necessarily surprising, but it's very satisfying to find it there because it hasn't been observed before," says Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, lead author of the new study. "It's been looked for [on comets] spectroscopically with telescopes but the content seems so low you can't see it that way."
I thought you might find this interesting when considering the direction amino acid ideas might take you.
Louis Pasteur, Linus Pauling, and Francis Crick (evolutionist co-discoverer if the DNA structure) all pointed out: The amino acids of life, from mold up to Man, are all of one special form. John Maddox, English biologist, call this “an intellectual thunderbolt”: Randomized experiments always give a “racemic” mixture (a mixture of both right and lefthanded molecules), approximately equal proportions of D- and L-, right-handed and lefthanded amino acids (chemically identical, but “mirror images” of each other) - whereas life proteins consist of left-handed molecules only! (Francis H.C. Crick, Molecules and Men,
Seattle University of Washington Press, 1966, p. 60; John Maddox, Revolution in Biology, New York, Macmillan Company, p. 59)
Now why in the world should that be so accidental? It’s enough to drive poor scientists batty trying to dig up some exotic catalyst that might shift the yield in some tiny way (to date
always less than 10%) in the “right” direction (left!). (James F. Coppedge: “The Mystery of Left-Handed Molecules in Proteins”; Evolution—Possible or Impossible?, pp. 55-79)
What is even more disappointing is that no high-order, information carrying molecules like those life uses ever arrive in the soup, let alone anything remotely looking as if it could
move, eat, or reproduce itself.
Foxy Microspheres
Then there is Sidney Foxe’s ingenious “microsphere” idea. “Perhaps,” he thinks, “volcanoes did it.” Cook a dry mix of L- amino acids and you get a “thermal pan-polymer”or “proteinoid.” Drop these amino acid chains into water and they clump into little groups he calls “microspheres.” Since these little shapes look and act physically in many ways like living things, Mr. Foxe believes this is the way it happened. Top marks for ingenuity, but proteinoids resemble life like a junkyard resembles a Ferarri, and they grow like a wet toilet roll, not like an orange. Real life proteins are unique because of their structure and information- carrying sequence. “ProteinOID: is not at all proTEIN; the name looks the same to the innocent, but they lack tertiary form (a technical term involving a three-fold arrangement of molecules), their structural mix of amino acids is hopelessly different, and they are essentially random, too fragile, and too simple. Other than superficial, physical characteristics,they have nothing complex enough going for them inside or outside to ever grow up to be
real proteins. (S. L. Miller & H. C. Urey: “Organic Compounds Synthesis on the Primitive Earth,” Science, 130:247, 1959; Fox, Harada, Woods, & Windsor: Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 102:439, 1963; H. Holter: “How Things Get Into Cells,” Scientific American, 205:167-180, 1961; M. & L. Hokin: “The Chemistry of Cell Membranes,” op. cit. 213:78-86,
1965)
Life In A Test-tube?
“But didn’t scientists make life in a test-tube somewhere?” No, Virginia, they did not. (Some have transplanted little lives - the “test-tube babies” - but that is another story.) Neither DNA
nor protein is a molecules that can duplicate itself; DNA is the servant of the cell. Likewise the virus is absolutely dependent on the cell for its survival, and either came after the cell or
was created with it. (R. L. Wysong: “Is Life Definable?”, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1978, pp. 190-220). Gary Parker, an ex-evolutionary biologist and geologist (whose excellent little book Creation- The Facts of Life, along with Wysong’s detailed volume was one of the best resources
for this article), has written DNA: The Key to Life (Educational Methods, Inc., Chicago), a programmed textbook of the subject. He asks, “What does it take to make a
living cell alive? The answer is something every scientist recognizes and uses in his laboratory,something every scientist can infer from his observations of DNA and protein creative
design and organization. What we know about the DNA-protein relationship suggests that living cells have the created kind of design.” (Creation - The Facts of Life, pp. 14-15).
Then there is Sidney Foxe’s ingenious “microsphere” idea. “Perhaps,” he thinks, “volcanoes did it.” Cook a dry mix of L- amino acids and you get a “thermal pan-polymer”or “proteinoid.” Drop these amino acid chains into water and they clump into little groups he calls “microspheres.” Since these little shapes look and act physically in many ways like living things, Mr. Foxe believes this is the way it happened. Top marks for ingenuity, but proteinoids resemble life like a junkyard resembles a Ferarri, and they grow like a wet toilet roll, not like an orange. Real life proteins are unique because of their structure and information- carrying sequence. “ProteinOID: is not at all proTEIN; the name looks the same to the innocent, but they lack tertiary form (a technical term involving a three-fold arrangement of molecules), their structural mix of amino acids is hopelessly different, and they are essentially random, too fragile, and too simple. Other than superficial, physical characteristics,they have nothing complex enough going for them inside or outside to ever grow up to be
real proteins. (S. L. Miller & H. C. Urey: “Organic Compounds Synthesis on the Primitive Earth,” Science, 130:247, 1959; Fox, Harada, Woods, & Windsor: Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, 102:439, 1963; H. Holter: “How Things Get Into Cells,” Scientific American, 205:167-180, 1961; M. & L. Hokin: “The Chemistry of Cell Membranes,” op. cit. 213:78-86,
1965)
Life In A Test-tube?
“But didn’t scientists make life in a test-tube somewhere?” No, Virginia, they did not. (Some have transplanted little lives - the “test-tube babies” - but that is another story.) Neither DNA
nor protein is a molecules that can duplicate itself; DNA is the servant of the cell. Likewise the virus is absolutely dependent on the cell for its survival, and either came after the cell or
was created with it. (R. L. Wysong: “Is Life Definable?”, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, Inquiry Press, 1978, pp. 190-220). Gary Parker, an ex-evolutionary biologist and geologist (whose excellent little book Creation- The Facts of Life, along with Wysong’s detailed volume was one of the best resources
for this article), has written DNA: The Key to Life (Educational Methods, Inc., Chicago), a programmed textbook of the subject. He asks, “What does it take to make a
living cell alive? The answer is something every scientist recognizes and uses in his laboratory,something every scientist can infer from his observations of DNA and protein creative
design and organization. What we know about the DNA-protein relationship suggests that living cells have the created kind of design.” (Creation - The Facts of Life, pp. 14-15).
Frankenstien Had A Better Idea
People have shot long-suffering pools of chemicals with everything they can think of— sound, light, heat, gamma-rays, even bullets, but naturally enough, they stay dead. (J.
Keosian: The Origin of Life, N.Y. Reinhold 28, 68, 1968) All this with the express and intelligent purpose of creating life by accident. We could save a lot of trouble and revisit Dr. Frankenstein who had a better idea. All the material we need is in the morgue. Why bother battering around poor old amino acids
when there are all the cells, DNA, enzymes, and proteins you need ready assembled in your local cemetery (or even the supermarket)? Save the taxpayers millions; hit, burn, and
shoot sparks into corpses or chicken gizzards. When all is said and done, there’s a great deal more said than actually done. “Chemistry is not then our ancestor, it’s our problem.
When cells lose their biological order and start reacting in chemical ways, we die, what’s lost at death is balance and biological order that otherwise uses food to put us together
faster than chemistry can tear us apart!” (Parker, op. cit., pp. 8-10) If the ultimate computer researcher interface successfully synthesizes an egg, no self-respecting hen will touch it.
Life is not merely chemical complexity, but a gift from the Living God.
And yes, I did get this from a Christian source. Surprisingly the Richard Dawkins’ websites offered little to support my set of convictions.
People have shot long-suffering pools of chemicals with everything they can think of— sound, light, heat, gamma-rays, even bullets, but naturally enough, they stay dead. (J.
Keosian: The Origin of Life, N.Y. Reinhold 28, 68, 1968) All this with the express and intelligent purpose of creating life by accident. We could save a lot of trouble and revisit Dr. Frankenstein who had a better idea. All the material we need is in the morgue. Why bother battering around poor old amino acids
when there are all the cells, DNA, enzymes, and proteins you need ready assembled in your local cemetery (or even the supermarket)? Save the taxpayers millions; hit, burn, and
shoot sparks into corpses or chicken gizzards. When all is said and done, there’s a great deal more said than actually done. “Chemistry is not then our ancestor, it’s our problem.
When cells lose their biological order and start reacting in chemical ways, we die, what’s lost at death is balance and biological order that otherwise uses food to put us together
faster than chemistry can tear us apart!” (Parker, op. cit., pp. 8-10) If the ultimate computer researcher interface successfully synthesizes an egg, no self-respecting hen will touch it.
Life is not merely chemical complexity, but a gift from the Living God.
And yes, I did get this from a Christian source. Surprisingly the Richard Dawkins’ websites offered little to support my set of convictions.
jahzah: I believe he was one of the original celebrities who's story was passed down and made more and more ridiculous every time it was told
I guess you did not read where I addressed this issue. I believe it was back on page 17 or 18 if you are interested.
Jihadmeathello: Well, it adapted stories that were already known before Jesus
The virgin birth, resurrecting from the dead, a human incantation of god, all these were in pagan religions well before jesus walked the earth. Th first gospels weren't even written till 50 years after Jesus died (Mathew and mark, Luke 60 years afterward, and John 80 years afterward), and that would make the authors 80 in a time were life expectancy was only 50 years of age at the very earliest of gospels. That is a long time to blow a story up. And either the authors were disciples and old and senile, or they were written by someone else claiming to be a disciple.
Jesus was a great teacher, to bad it seems his followers don;t pay attention to his lessons
The virgin birth, resurrecting from the dead, a human incantation of god, all these were in pagan religions well before jesus walked the earth. Th first gospels weren't even written till 50 years after Jesus died (Mathew and mark, Luke 60 years afterward, and John 80 years afterward), and that would make the authors 80 in a time were life expectancy was only 50 years of age at the very earliest of gospels. That is a long time to blow a story up. And either the authors were disciples and old and senile, or they were written by someone else claiming to be a disciple.
Jesus was a great teacher, to bad it seems his followers don;t pay attention to his lessons
I addressed this back on page 18. Please take a look and comment if you are interested.
RayfromUSA: When Jesus died:
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
- He had no money.
- He had no organization.
- He was condemned by the state and by the crowds.
- He was considered a criminal.
- His handful of poor followers were hiding for their lives.
- He was buried in a borrowed grave.
- In his entire life, none of his words had ever been written down.
- He had never been more than 100 miles from his birthplace.
- He was a homeless vagabond.
- The local religion, and the local government wanted to wipe out his influence.
By all logic, there should be no record of his life at all.
Yet, now, 2000 years later, he is the most famous person of all history and his words have been published into every language on earth and published into every part of the world, and they continue to affect the lives of billions of people.
Explain that.
carenza: you have a point there.
I often wonder what the REAL Jesus would think, when he came back on earth. would he shake his head when he sees what people have done, and are still doing to each other, in HIS name?
I don't think this is what he had in mind when he 'developed' the concept of believe.
True faith comes from within the heart and the hope of better things to come.
not from other people claiming to be the incarnation of jesus or god.
but, this is my humble opinion. hope I have not offended anyone.
I often wonder what the REAL Jesus would think, when he came back on earth. would he shake his head when he sees what people have done, and are still doing to each other, in HIS name?
I don't think this is what he had in mind when he 'developed' the concept of believe.
True faith comes from within the heart and the hope of better things to come.
not from other people claiming to be the incarnation of jesus or god.
but, this is my humble opinion. hope I have not offended anyone.
You have a great point here!
So much evil has been done in His name, but I know everyone involved will get everything they have coming.
It is interesting that when Jesus walked the earth, it was the sinners He seemed to get along with. The religious people were is enemies. I wonder, if He came back in the same way today, would it be any different? If Jesus came back to tell me I have been behaving badly as a Christian, would I fall down and ask for His forgiveness, or would I be religious, say to myself “that’s not Jesus!” and act like those long ago acted… “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.” Matthew 12:14 ???
Because it was in the name of religion that Jesus was nailed to the cross.
Jihadmeathello: And with that point, you believe the recorded of his life is not altered in any fashion? The earliest gospels came a half a century after he died, most of the new testament books came out over a hundred years after he died, and the bible you recognize today was developed by the Romans three hundred years after he died. I am not saying he was not an outstanding guy with a place in history, but you have to question the legitimacy of the story.
Again, please read back on pages 17 and 18 as to how I address this point of contention.
theoldestdear: This claim is irrelevant to the theory of evolution itself, since evolution does not occur via assembly from individual parts, but rather via selective gradual modifications to existing structures. Order can and does result from such evolutionary processes. Hoyle applied his analogy to abiogenesis, where it is more applicable. However, the general principle behind it is wrong. Order arises spontaneously from disorder all the time. The tornado itself is an example of order arising spontaneously. Something as complicated as people would not arise spontaneously from raw chemicals, but there is no reason to believe that something as simple as a self-replicating molecule could not form thus. From there, evolution can produce more and more complexity.
Interesting post.
Have you ever wondered about the use of the world “selective.” I mean, doesn’t the word selective suggest a “selector”? Wouldn’t this go back to the idea that it is a matter of chance, not selection?
Time (only about 4 billion years, much shorter than previously expected) + matter + CHANCE = man and the whole universe?
You could call this a sort of 1st grade apologetics (most atheist hate this):
Frog + Princess kiss = Handsome prince… this is called fairy story.
Frog + 4 billion years = Handsome prince… this is called science.
To your example of the tornado, I would ask for another. An example that is sustained. I never heard an argument of a tornado evolving into something higher than itself.
What simple “self-replicating molecule” are you referring to? I think we have covered that even the smallest form of life was far too complicated to have just formed by accident.
Son Of Darwin Meets Multiprocessor
(A Science-Fact Horror-Movie For An Old Theory)
Darwin had been dead 33 years. He had no idea that his theories could ever be practically tested. Charles Babbage's "analytical engine" had failed to get off the ground 70 years before, awaiting the very technology that Fleming launched. It was left to John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert in 1946 to build the first nail for the coffin of Darwin's time-protected theory in ENIAC, a clanking, hard-wired monstrosity weighing 30 tons that used 19,000 of these vacuum-tubes, prototypes of the modern microchip. Some of us forget how long ago Darwin lived. Born the same year as Abe Lincoln (1809), nine years after Volta re-invented the electric battery, it would have really blown his circuits to see a home micro-computer, let alone to run a CRAY-1 or a S1 Mark IIA Multiprocessor with the capacity of eight BILLION operations a second. In Darwin's day, the great salvation of his theory was that no one could live long enough to disprove it. For over a century the standard argument ran like this: "Just because you can't see it working today doesn't mean it didn't; you haven't looked long enough, so there! Given enough time and chance, anything can happen - and probably did." Enter digital logic, integrated circuitry, the programmable computer: and with it a whole new ball game. You see it is now possible to duplicate millions of years and billions of random variations, simulate original conditions, accelerate any possible spontaneous process - to practically shrink awesome numbers into time slots of months, weeks, sometimes days or hours. Darwin's theory can be tested, today, NOW. And it has been. With embarrassing results. Put simply, it doesn't work. Put bluntly, nothing else outside of INTELLIGENT DIRECTED CONTROL does anything more than jam test programs into chaos. This has led to interesting shouting matches between the cyberneticists (those who ran the tests on the computers), and the neo-Darwinists, and some mad scrambles for some exotic new catalyst or concept to account for the disappointing facts. Leave a system to itself and all you have at the end of a long time is a bigger mess than you started with. And new discoveries on the complexity of molecules and the conditions necessary to create them only seem to make the problem worse.
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretaion of Evolution - Ed. Moorhead & Kaplan, Philadelphia: Wister Institue, 1967; Murray Eden: Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, p. 11; M.
(A Science-Fact Horror-Movie For An Old Theory)
Darwin had been dead 33 years. He had no idea that his theories could ever be practically tested. Charles Babbage's "analytical engine" had failed to get off the ground 70 years before, awaiting the very technology that Fleming launched. It was left to John Mauchly and J. Presper Eckert in 1946 to build the first nail for the coffin of Darwin's time-protected theory in ENIAC, a clanking, hard-wired monstrosity weighing 30 tons that used 19,000 of these vacuum-tubes, prototypes of the modern microchip. Some of us forget how long ago Darwin lived. Born the same year as Abe Lincoln (1809), nine years after Volta re-invented the electric battery, it would have really blown his circuits to see a home micro-computer, let alone to run a CRAY-1 or a S1 Mark IIA Multiprocessor with the capacity of eight BILLION operations a second. In Darwin's day, the great salvation of his theory was that no one could live long enough to disprove it. For over a century the standard argument ran like this: "Just because you can't see it working today doesn't mean it didn't; you haven't looked long enough, so there! Given enough time and chance, anything can happen - and probably did." Enter digital logic, integrated circuitry, the programmable computer: and with it a whole new ball game. You see it is now possible to duplicate millions of years and billions of random variations, simulate original conditions, accelerate any possible spontaneous process - to practically shrink awesome numbers into time slots of months, weeks, sometimes days or hours. Darwin's theory can be tested, today, NOW. And it has been. With embarrassing results. Put simply, it doesn't work. Put bluntly, nothing else outside of INTELLIGENT DIRECTED CONTROL does anything more than jam test programs into chaos. This has led to interesting shouting matches between the cyberneticists (those who ran the tests on the computers), and the neo-Darwinists, and some mad scrambles for some exotic new catalyst or concept to account for the disappointing facts. Leave a system to itself and all you have at the end of a long time is a bigger mess than you started with. And new discoveries on the complexity of molecules and the conditions necessary to create them only seem to make the problem worse.
Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretaion of Evolution - Ed. Moorhead & Kaplan, Philadelphia: Wister Institue, 1967; Murray Eden: Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, p. 11; M.
Well, this has been fun again!
I hope there will be many posts to come. Keep it everyone, and maybe we will learn a thing or two.
Take care everybody!
Goodnight!!
I hope there will be many posts to come. Keep it everyone, and maybe we will learn a thing or two.
Take care everybody!
Goodnight!!
pauldavid68: in an ever changing world, i just wonder if people believe in jesus.
I do believe in Jesus as a good human being,uplifter of the poor and weak but not as a head of some organized religion.
Boban1: I do believe that he existed
Actually proving that he existed by actual real historical non religious documents recorded during his alleged lifetime, is about as easy as doing genealogical research into his family, including both his parents and brother.... It is strange that there are historical documents pertaining to his alleged brother and of being murdered when pushed to his death...
MikeHD: You have a great point here!
So much evil has been done in His name, but I know everyone involved will get everything they have coming.
It is interesting that when Jesus walked the earth, it was the sinners He seemed to get along with. The religious people were is enemies. I wonder, if He came back in the same way today, would it be any different? If Jesus came back to tell me I have been behaving badly as a Christian, would I fall down and ask for His forgiveness, or would I be religious, say to myself “that’s not Jesus!” and act like those long ago acted… “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.” Matthew 12:14 ???
Because it was in the name of religion that Jesus was nailed to the cross.
Great post!So much evil has been done in His name, but I know everyone involved will get everything they have coming.
It is interesting that when Jesus walked the earth, it was the sinners He seemed to get along with. The religious people were is enemies. I wonder, if He came back in the same way today, would it be any different? If Jesus came back to tell me I have been behaving badly as a Christian, would I fall down and ask for His forgiveness, or would I be religious, say to myself “that’s not Jesus!” and act like those long ago acted… “But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might destroy Him.” Matthew 12:14 ???
Because it was in the name of religion that Jesus was nailed to the cross.
pauldavid68: in an ever changing world, i just wonder if people believe in jesus.
Many peple know jesus and have faith in him but lacks ACTION.Yet faith without action is DEAD.e.g Jesus said "love one onother".How many of us know this commandment yet at certain situations we forget it and let our minds be controlled by emotions?
Japanese tsunami: reason 5004 I don't believe in a caring god
reneldo: We only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.
There were several historians of the ancient world whose works are quite popular. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later! The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later.
The time span for the biblical manuscript copies for the Magdelene Papyrus, John Rhylands, Bodmer and Chester Betty Papyrus, Diatessaron, Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Alexandrins to name a few, are all within 350 years of the originals, some as early as 130-250 years and one even purporting to coexist with the original (i.e. the Magdalene Manuscript fragments of Matthew 26), while the time span for the secular manuscript copies are much greater, between 750-1,400 years! This indeed gives enormous authority to the biblical manuscript copies, as no other ancient piece of literature can make such close time comparisons.
So, your argument is that people with provable science have been written and handed down.....you understand that that is provable right? Not a Dr. Suess like story handed down through people who had an obvious political agenda
MikeHD: Again, please read back on pages 17 and 18 as to how I address this point of contention.
LMAO!!!
Those posts answered noting!! You can not answer it!! Not with any sense of fact. Your book, no matter how great t is, has been altered by the feelings of human beings of the time, and not by god. The anti women, anti gay, and anti Semitic in your "ho;y" book is man made, quit giving that hatred a pass. You want me to go into detail? I know how the bible was written, you obviously don't. Your religion is shaped by roman ideals that selected ideals from books written 200 years before it, and a hundred years after Jesus died. This is very weak evidence.
Tactus born in 56AD Too late.
Pliny the Younger born in 61AD....again...too late.
Anything written by these "sources" would be hearsay.
Perhaps, but Tacitus and the younger Pliny were patricians with access to senatorial and imperial records and libraries.
To employ your methodology in verifying ancient sources would leave us with very little to actually treat as authentic.
Do you realise that none of the sources for Alexander the Great are actually contemporary? Traces of the historian Callisthenes can be found in these texts, but alas, the original records have been lost.
There are numerous examples of the above predicament. Extant OSS are all we have to go on in Philology. These manuscripts can be supported by archaeological evidence, however, we often need the texts to place the finds in context.
Pliny the Younger born in 61AD....again...too late.
Anything written by these "sources" would be hearsay.
Perhaps, but Tacitus and the younger Pliny were patricians with access to senatorial and imperial records and libraries.
To employ your methodology in verifying ancient sources would leave us with very little to actually treat as authentic.
Do you realise that none of the sources for Alexander the Great are actually contemporary? Traces of the historian Callisthenes can be found in these texts, but alas, the original records have been lost.
There are numerous examples of the above predicament. Extant OSS are all we have to go on in Philology. These manuscripts can be supported by archaeological evidence, however, we often need the texts to place the finds in context.
Dmire: Many peple know jesus and have faith in him but lacks ACTION.Yet faith without action is DEAD.e.g Jesus said "love one onother".How many of us know this commandment yet at certain situations we forget it and let our minds be controlled by emotions?
True... which is why it's important to go back & read "love one another" and more. It's easy to forget in the everyday life sometimes... More Threads
men's perspective towards women
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
Happy Birthday MysteriousGirl80
Sleepy Don!
Would you hire this guy - for any job?
Feel Good Music
the way you look
Ladies
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
The Best of the GOP
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »