hypocracy of christianity

[Fire Storm]

Some real logical arguments there, Otaku. Professor Arseblogger? He related to Professor Long Doodlelength? Cousins?


A global flood would cause a rapid change in climate. See A Day After Tomorrow. Good movie. Cute girl. I like it.


Who said Mammoths wern't in the Ark? Maybe they died after. Maybe like the dinasoars they wern't considered by God to be worthy of keeping...thankfully.



Interesting what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 .**.**. The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”


Also some in the past, involving certain primitive people -in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society Islands, Peru, Mexico - preserved a possible remnant of these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a ‘Feast of Ancestors’ or a ‘Festival of the Dead.’


From 'Life and Work at the Great Pyramid', the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November because they “had a tradition that at that time the world had been previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race.” -By Professor C.**Piazzi Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391


'The Worship of the Dead': “This festival [of the dead] is .**.**. held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” -By J.**Garnier, London, 1904, p.**4


The Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.”


'Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge': “even on the tops of high mountains, whole trees sunk deep under ground, as also teeth and bones of animals, fishes entire, seashells, ears of corn, etc., petrified”; which could never have come there but by a world-wide deluge."


Professor Fred Hoyle of University College, Cardiff, and Elizabeth Butler of Oxford University: “suggest that if the last ice age .**.**. had taken thousands of years to take hold on the Earth, the mammoths would have had time to migrate south to a warmer climate. Their excellent state of preservation is also evidence that they were quickly frozen after death—otherwise they would have begun to decompose.”


Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe - 'Evolution From Space' : “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”

“If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable .**.**. it would of course be otherwise,”. ".....becomes committed to a particular set of concepts, educational continuity makes it exceedingly hard to change the pattern. You either have to believe the concepts or you will be branded a heretic.”

“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. .**.**. so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”







I see you guys are wondering about the age of Earth. True some creationists say 6000 years or so according to the Bible. But that indeed is wrong. Genesis says God created the Earth in six days. But it does say in the Bible that a thousand years are as one day to God so its not a literal day. Most likely several thousand, if not millions of years for each 'day'.


Also interesting is the order in which Moses listed the events.

(1)**a beginning (2)**a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water (3)**light (4)**an expanse or atmosphere (5)**large areas of dry land (6)**land plants (7)**sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)**sea monsters and flying creatures (9)**wild and tame beasts, mammals (10)**man.


Usually what many scientists say is the right order. Even evolutionists. The thing is, if you/me had to pick random blocks that were numbered from 1-10 and actually get it right first time - like out of a hat - the odds of doing that are around 1 in 3.6 million so I've heard.

So it just happended eh? Also interesting to note is that Roylion considered Moses and co to be uneducated men. So how would THEY know the right order Earth and life on it started?

A huge 1 in 3.6 million fluke? Makes you wonder.............

 

[purplesoul]

Firestorm, let me get this right.

- The great flood occurred approximately 5,000 years ago.
- It wiped out all human/animal life bar those that were on Noah's ark.
- After the flood subsided Noah, his wife, his son's and their families repopulated the entire world.
- The animals that were on the Ark repopulated the world.

Now, putting aside my notions that there was not a worldwide flood 5,000 years ago, I am sure you can understand that is difficuilt to comprehend how in the space of 5,000 years, from this one vessel, people and animals have been able to populate and spread around the world.

I do not know much on dating, but surely anthropology studies would clearly prove that, say, aboriginals that inhabit Australia would not have come from Noah's family only 5,000 years ago?

 

[Roylion]

From the 2nd Century on, early church historians were convinced that Matthew did indeed write it and when. I've already put all there names on the forum. Everyone's seen it.

And I'm telling you that the vast majority of modern Biblical scholarship does not believe this is correct. I've also posted three times the dates which they believe Matthew was written, probably in Antioch. The names you mentioned are not Church historians. They are church officials, but this far from being historians. They all wrote after the time of Matthew and none of them were contemporary with the apostle of Jesus.

The Epistle of Barnabas, dated A.D. 130, (note after the date accepted by Biblical scholars) regarded this gospel as Scripture. The letters of Ignatius and Polycarp from the first half of the second century indicate that the congregations were familiar with the Gospel of Matthew at that early date, which meant it was definitely in existance by AD 130. Clement of Alexandria in the second century was also knowledgeable of this gospel. The work entitled The Didache, quoted Matthew 6:9, Matthew 7:6, was familiar with Matthew 28:19, and shows it was knowledgeable of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew's gospel. All well after Matthew's Gospel was written.

You also doubted the text would be in any museum, yet I've proved it was was contained in a library in its Hebrew form which Matthew wrote it in.

Supposedly. However no Hebrew Gospel of Matthew exists today. None has been found. Some have alleged that Matthew's gospel was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into Greek by an unknown translator. This hypothesis stems from a statement made by Papias around A.D. 125 that Matthew had written sayings of the Lord, logia, in the Hebrew language. Perhaps Matthew did write a Hebrew document with a collection of Jesus' sayings. This, however, does not mean that document was necessarily what we now know as the Gospel of Matthew. If the apostle Matthew did indeed write a Hebrew Gospel as alleged, being an apostle his Hebrew Gospel would have certainly been used and circulated within the ancient church. Yet to our knowledge no one in ancient antiquity ever saw such a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. The effort to prove on the basis of linguistic evidence that Matthew's gospel was translated from a Hebrew original into the present Greek text has proven to be unsuccessful. Linguistic scholars have indicated the Greek text of the Gospel of Matthew reads like a Greek original.

You have doubted that it wouldn't have been changed by Churches from the original form yet it was stated :

"It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change.”

Stated by who.

There is also the fact that Matthew didn't write it after 70 C.E otherwise he would've made mention of the fact about the fullfillment of Jesus prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem.

Certainly Mark made reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and Mark for all sort of reasons already stated is believed by most biblical scholars to be the forerunner of Matthew and Luke.

Yes, your correct about 41 C.E not being written on the manuscripts. They actually mentioned that it was written about the eighth year after Christ’s ascension - c 41 C.E.

Who is they?
Where was this mentioned?
Where are the manuscripts now?
In what museum do they currently reside.

If thats not enough proof, I don't know what is.

Fragments of a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew dated to AD 40-50. The other question is of course is why Matthew would write a Gospel in Hebrew, when the dominant language of the Near East at that time was Aramaic and Greek. Jesus it is believed spoke Aramaic.

Some are still doubting the flood. I'll paste again:

Would you like me to paste all the scientific objections to a Universal Flood, as described in the Bible. There are many.

Take a look at the site I posted alreadfy as a starting point. Would you likle to address some of these statements.

Another evidence for the Flood appears to exist in the fossil record. At one time, according to this record, great saber-toothed tigers stalked their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roamed North America, and mammoths foraged in Siberia. Then, all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

Many have argued other causes. In any case great saber-toothed tigers stalking their prey in Europe, horses larger than any now living roaming North America, and mammoths foraging in Siberia, did not exist between 3,000 BC and 2,000 BC, when according to the Bible the Flood must have occurred.

“Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock, for example, which can be traced to Scandinavia, are scattered over the plains of Denmark and northern Germany. Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons. The same phenomenon is found here in America in the New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere. . . . In many cases the distance over which they have been transported is very great, and sometimes they are found at an elevation apparently much higher than their source.”

How does this prove that this is because of a world wide Flooikd. This phenomenon could have been caused by tsunamis, regional floods, carried by glaciers. How is this specifically because of a world-wide flood. This is not proof of a world-wide flood.

*Some have theorized that these huge masses of stone were carried to their present locations on top of glaciers during an ice age. “However, these boulders are also found in warmer climates far from any signs of glaciation. For example, in Southern California,” notes the book Target: Earth. Too, glaciers cannot account for many of these “erratic” rock masses resting on ground higher, sometimes thousands of feet higher, than their apparent original location. “And there is still another problem connected with the erratics for which the glacial theory has no satisfactory answer,” observes Rehwinkel:

And why wouldn't regional floods have caused the same phenomena. Again I see no reason to agree that this phenomena is direct evidence of a world wide flood.

“And that is the question of the mixture of rocks in one locality brought there from sources lying in opposite directions. This phenomenon has been observed in several places of the earth. One of them is in Saxony, where rocks are found lying together of which some had their source in Scandinavia in the north, while others were carried there from some source in the south. . . . Moving ice cannot accumulate boulders from opposite directions and deposit them together at one place.”

See above.

In the United States, England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere huge fissures in the earth have been found filled with the remains of large numbers of animals. They include mixtures of bones of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, reindeer, horse, hog, bear, and many others. One such cavern near Palermo, Sicily, yielded more than twenty tons of bones for commercial purposes. Often these fissures are located on isolated hills at considerable height where animals would be expected to flee from floodwaters that “kept increasing greatly upon the earth.” With regard to the variety of animal remains found in one bone cave, the book Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries asks:

What made rabbits run into the same cave as coyotes? And an antelope with a wolverine and a grizzly? Bones of the mastodon were found, also a few reptiles . . . The whole mass of bones was covered and preserved by a flood deposit of gravel and rocks.”

More detail needed for me to say whether this was due to a universal flood. How high above sea level. What was the surrounding land like. is there a scientific or archaeological paper on this event? How thick is the flood deposit. At what age has the flood deposit been dated? What age have the bones been dated? What is the surrounding land like? Is there a Flood deposit outside the cave or caves? Has it been dated to the same time? Does the entire country show signs of a Flood desposit of the same size, depth and age? Until these questions are answered and the relevant evidence produced, the above is proof of a world wide Flood at all. It's just speculation...not proof.

An extraordinary testimony to the widespread watery destruction of animal life is the remains of the mammoths found throughout northern Siberia and into Alaska. Hundreds of thousands (some estimate as many as 5,000,000) of these creatures were rapidly buried and quick-frozen in icy muck. They are sometimes found in a near-perfect state of preservation, with undigested tropical vegetation in their stomachs and between their teeth. As to the type of catastrophe that could sweep away creatures over so widespread an area, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries observes:

“There is one significant fact that is always connected with every dinosaur fossil and every mammoth fossil, and that is that every fossil is almost invariably dug out of water-laid sedimentary rock. Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.”

Oh dear. And yet they neglected to mention that just about every species of dinosaur has been dug out of rock that has been dated at different eras. How this statement is meant to show that there is one Universal Flood is beyond me, where all dinosaurs died at the same time. It doesn't.

Could 'Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries' perhaps give the date where up to 5 million mammoths, many with near-perfect state of preservation, with undigested tropical vegetation in their stomachs were supposely obliterated by a flood. Again the date when compared with other dates around the world, would determine whether a world-wide flood did occur. I've never read any such evidence. I have a couple of archaeological articles on mammoths somewhere. I'll dig them up and test "Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries" claims. Sounds like it was written for the gullible.

Target: Earth notes with regard to the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.”

Again how is this evidence for a world wide flood as described in the Bible. As a piece of evidence for a world-wide flood it is almost worthless. Regional Flood yes....(we're not denying that regional floods..some of them quite large..happen)...worldwide flood no.

In his book Die Sintflut in Sage und Wissenschaft -The Deluge in Legend and Science- Dr. Johannes Riem of Germany notes: “Among all traditions there is none so general, so widespread on earth, . . . as the Flood tradition.” Some 150 separate flood legends have been found from every part of the earth, including ancient Greece, Rome, India, Australia, and the Americas. Though these legends differ in details, there is remarkable agreement on basic points. For example: (1) There was a moral cause of the Flood, namely, man’s wickedness; (2) Global destruction of the human race took place; (3) One man was forewarned and saved himself and a few others in an ark or boat.

You yourself mentioned a possible explanation for this earlier when you stated that people migrated from Mesopotamia taking the story with them. The of course those areas with a Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture are likely to have similar flood stories.

In any case many Flood Stories from around the world do not follow the basic points that you outlined.

For example. A flood story from Kenya for example.

The ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything.

and southern China that has element but not 1 and 3.

"From the time of creation, people's lives were happy and peaceful, but one year a great flood came. The parents of Mahei and Maniu, twin brother and sister, felled a big tree, hollowed it out, and covered both ends with cowhide. They attached brass bells to the outside, and inside they put grain and seed, the two children, and a knife and cake of beeswax. They instructed the children not to come out until the flood had gone down. The flood came, and the children floated for an undeterminable period. Mahei got impatient and cut a small hole with the knife. He saw muddy waves surging and dead bodies everywhere, and he closed the hole with wax. Later, Maniu cut a hole and saw nothing but water; she likewise filled the hole. Finally, they heard the bells ringing, indicating they had touched ground, and they left the drum. They were the only survivors."

On Vancouver island for exmple they tell the following Flood story...

Kwakiutl (north Vancouver Island):
"Very long ago, a flood covered everything but three mountains, one near Bella-Bella, one northeast of there, and a hill called Ko-Kwus on Don Island which rose with the flood to stay above the water. Nearly all people floated on logs and trees in different directions. Some people had small canoes with anchors and managed to land near their homes when the water subsided. Of the Hailtzuk only two men, a woman, and a dog survived. One of the men landed at Ka-pa, one at another village site, and the woman and dog at Bella-Bella. The Bella-Bella Indians descended from the marriage of the woman and dog. There was no fresh water when the flood subsided. The raven showed people where they could dig for a little water and how chewing on cedar brought water into their mouths. This sustained them until a great rain came which filled the lakes and rivers. It is still understood, though, that without cedars there would be no water.

Most Aboriginal flood stories do not mention a world wide flood that destroyed all humanity, let alone talking of a man that was forewarned or the flood occuring because of human wickedness.

From Oregon
Twice, a great flood came. Afraid that another might come, the people made a giant canoe from a big cedar. When they saw a third flood coming, they put the bravest young men and fairest young women in the canoe, with plenty of food. Then the flood, bigger and deeper than the earlier ones, swallowed the land. It rained for many days and nights, but when the clouds finally parted for the third time, the people saw land (Mount Jefferson) and paddled to it. When the water receded, they made their home at the base of the mountain. The canoe was turned to stone and can be seen on Mount Jefferson today.

The Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament: Genesis says:

“The harmony between all these accounts is an undeniable guarantee that the tradition is no idle invention; a fiction is individual, not universal; that tradition has, therefore, a historical foundation; it is the result of an event which really happened in the ages of the childhood of mankind.”

This is opinion, not fact. Many scientists, historians and archaeologists view these enduring flood tales as short, dramatised versions of the memory of rising seas at the end of the Ice Age, or in some areas of the world stories or large regional floods that occured in flood-prone areas such as the Tigris-Euphrates valley.

Some historians have even postulated that the Flood stories were triggered by the sudden flooding of the Black Sea, which is believed to have occured about 5,600 BC. Two senior scientists from Columbia University have proposed a theory that a massive transfer of water occurred about 5600 BCE - over seven and a half millennia ago. They wrote: "Ten cubic miles of water poured through each day, two hundred times what flows over Niagara Falls." "The Bosporus flume roared and surged at full spate for at least three hundred days." 60,000 square miles of land were inundated. The Black Sea shoreline significantly expanded to the north and east. The lake's its water level was raised many hundreds of feet. It changed from a fresh-water landlocked lake into a salt water lake connected to the world's oceans."

They have drawn on the findings of experts in agriculture, archaeology, genetics, geology, language, development of textiles and pottery, etc. They postulate that this deluge had catastrophic effects on the people living on the shore of the Black Sea. It triggered mass migrations across Europe and into the Near East, Middle East and Egypt. It may have been the source of many flood stories in the area.

They argue that Genesis was written over an interval of many centuries by at least five author/editors. The universal flood story was derived from an earlier Babylonian myth by two of these authors. The Genesis flood myth is obviously based on an earlier Babylonian myth; there are many similarities between the two legends. The Babylonian myth appears to be based on an earlier legend that, in turn, might well have been based on dimly remembered memories of the Black Sea catastrophe.

I'm happy to give some of the specific evidence that may support this hypothesis. It's at least more verifiable than most of yours is.

Other scholars argue that the real rising sea level slowly invaded the Stone Age hunting territories for thousands of years, and the many Flood stories compress this event into overnight floods, storms, and destruction. Hence when creationists and Bible literalists collect these stories, they use it as 'evidence' (and I use that term loosely) that the Bible is true and correct.

Tree Ring, Radiocarbon- Carbon 14 dating is indeed flawed. The evidence is also there - from the Scientist themselves.

And yet many scientists do not agree that there was a world-wide flood. Perhaps you could address some of their concerns. I gave you a website to get you started. However I don't want to do all your research for you. Look it up.

 

[otaku]

Some real logical arguments there, Otaku. Professor Arseblogger? He related to Professor Long Doodlelength? Cousins?

see how ridiculous statements are, without the source to back them up?? My point exactly.

A global flood would cause a rapid change in climate. See A Day After Tomorrow. Good movie. Cute girl. I like it.

fun movie, cute chick, flawed science.

Who said Mammoths wern't in the Ark? Maybe they died after. Maybe like the dinasoars they wern't considered by God to be worthy of keeping...thankfully.

moses took two of every animal that walked on the earth. Your bible says so. Why dont we have contempory skeletons of the mammoths, or the dinosaurs? Why is the fossil layer layer down as evolutionist have described the Ages?

Why isnt there a layer of detrius around the world that shows how the flood (which would have had to have been several hundred metres deep) brought destruction to everything?

Interesting what The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says: “Flood stories have been discovered among nearly all nations and tribes. Though most common on the Asian mainland and the islands immediately south of it and on the North American continent, they have been found on all the continents. Totals of the number of stories known run as high as about 270 .**.**. The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood and the spread of the human race from one locale and even from one family. Though the traditions may not all refer to the same flood, apparently the vast majority do. The assertion that many of these flood stories came from contacts with missionaries will not stand up because most of them were gathered by anthropologists not interested in vindicating the Bible, and they are filled with fanciful and pagan elements evidently the result of transmission for extended periods of time in a pagan society. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition.”

Almost every race has dragon myths too - are we to assume dragons roamed the world? Or that humans existed at the same time dinosaurs did?

How about almost every race having a different god theory? We must assume then that all these gods existed. Thus the whole idea of your god being the one and only is bollocks.

Also some in the past, involving certain primitive people -in Australia, Egypt, Fiji, Society Islands, Peru, Mexico - preserved a possible remnant of these traditions about the Flood by observing in November a ‘Feast of Ancestors’ or a ‘Festival of the Dead.’


From 'Life and Work at the Great Pyramid', the festival in Mexico was held on the 17th of November because they “had a tradition that at that time the world had been previously destroyed; and they dreaded lest a similar catastrophe would, at the end of a cycle, annihilate the human race.” -By Professor C.**Piazzi Smyth, Edinburgh, 1867, Vol. II, pp. 390, 391

published in the 1880's - he also talks about measuring the passageways of the Great Pyramid, and using that as a guide to the end of the world, and other calamities. Hardly the most encouraging of credentials.

'The Worship of the Dead': “This festival [of the dead] is .**.**. held by all on or about the very day on which, according to the Mosaic account, the Deluge took place, viz., the seventeenth day of the second month—the month nearly corresponding with our November.” -By J.**Garnier, London, 1904, p.**4

and who is J Garnier? "in a month nearly corresponding with our November". how nearly is nearly? was it 6 months away?

Your critical examination of your proof isnt very good so far, but lets continue.

The Bible reports that the Flood began “in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month.”


'Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge': “even on the tops of high mountains, whole trees sunk deep under ground, as also teeth and bones of animals, fishes entire, seashells, ears of corn, etc., petrified”; which could never have come there but by a world-wide deluge."

do you know how long it takes for something to become pertrified?

Professor Fred Hoyle of University College, Cardiff, and Elizabeth Butler of Oxford University: “suggest that if the last ice age .**.**. had taken thousands of years to take hold on the Earth, the mammoths would have had time to migrate south to a warmer climate. Their excellent state of preservation is also evidence that they were quickly frozen after death—otherwise they would have begun to decompose.”

I have seen yak that have been frozen solid in Siberia. They were frozen in the last 100 years, yet we are not in an ice age. A major leap of faith in saying that the mammoths could migrate - I am sure many of them did, which is why you find mammoth skeletons in Central America.

Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe - 'Evolution From Space' : “Darwinian evolution is most unlikely to get even one polypeptide [chain of essential life substances] right, let alone the thousands on which living cells depend for survival. This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory.”

“If Darwinism were not considered socially desirable .**.**. it would of course be otherwise,”. ".....becomes committed to a particular set of concepts, educational continuity makes it exceedingly hard to change the pattern. You either have to believe the concepts or you will be branded a heretic.”

“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. .**.**. so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.”

Evolutions is for another thread - start it, and we shall discuss it. It holds no relevence to your interpretation of the bible atm.

I see you guys are wondering about the age of Earth. True some creationists say 6000 years or so according to the Bible. But that indeed is wrong. Genesis says God created the Earth in six days. But it does say in the Bible that a thousand years are as one day to God so its not a literal day. Most likely several thousand, if not millions of years for each 'day'.

Why did you quote a Young Earth Creationist in the first part of your argument then? Seems to me you are becoming confused.

Also interesting is the order in which Moses listed the events.

(1)**a beginning (2)**a primitive earth in darkness and enshrouded in heavy gases and water (3)**light (4)**an expanse or atmosphere (5)**large areas of dry land (6)**land plants (7)**sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning; (8)**sea monsters and flying creatures (9)**wild and tame beasts, mammals (10)**man.

Usually what many scientists say is the right order. Even evolutionists. The thing is, if you/me had to pick random blocks that were numbered from 1-10 and actually get it right first time - like out of a hat - the odds of doing that are around 1 in 3.6 million so I've heard.

So it just happended eh? Also interesting to note is that Roylion considered Moses and co to be uneducated men. So how would THEY know the right order Earth and life on it started?

A huge 1 in 3.6 million fluke? Makes you wonder.............

now - this is ridiculous!

first off, it isnt a chance thing - simple deduction will tell you that!

BUT if you want to go down the chance route:

take away the beginning (everyone knows the begginning is at the beginning), and take away man (any fool can see he is at the end):

straight away, it is now 1 in 40,320. Lowers the odds slightly doesnt it?

Next - if you are going to have land animals, obviously you need land - so lets take land out of the equation: 1 in 5040.


Next - we all can see without a light source, there is no light - so obviously light must follow darkness: 1 in 120

Odds dont look that bad now - with a few simple steps in reasoning - it goes from 1 in 3.6 million (an impressive number) to 1 in 120 (not so impressive)

But anywa, as i said before, that argument in meaningless.

 

[funkyfreo]

I have seen yak that have been frozen solid in Siberia. They were frozen in the last 100 years, yet we are not in an ice age. A major leap of faith in saying that the mammoths could migrate - I am sure many of them did, which is why you find mammoth skeletons in Central America.

Thing is when they got there they realised it was pretty warm and did not need hair any more, so became elephants.

 

[Fire Storm]

Now this is REALLY getting interesting.

And I'm telling you that the vast majority of modern Biblical scholarship does not believe this is correct.

You said MODERN. Any of them study the same manuscripts those 'church officials' in the 2nd to 5th century had access too? Any of them study the Hebrew manuscripts that was stored in the Caesarean library that Pamphilus had collected and Jerome had access too? The same one that had the time it was completed written on it? No.

So who do you think would know best?

And as for it being written in Hebrew, Jerome says:“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.”


Origen, in the 3rd Century “first was written .**.**. according to Matthew, .**.**. who published it for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew language."

Even more evidence...again.

Stated by who.

I've already mentioned it, Roylion. Not listening? Or not wanting to listen.

Certainly Mark made reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and Mark for all sort of reasons already stated is believed by most biblical scholars to be the forerunner of Matthew and Luke.

Actually, wrong again. Mark doesn't make any mention of Jerusalem's desctruction in 70 C.E either. Evidence perhaps shows his account was finished between 60-65 C.E.

There goes your theory of writers waiting untill AFTER the event to record them and claim a prophecy.

Take a look at the site I posted alreadfy as a starting point.

As I've already stated, I could've directed YOU to a pro-flood site which I never got one piece of info from. To me that reeeks of biasism(sic). I chose quoets from those that had seen the evidence for themselves and all had come to the same conclusion.



Regional flood? Regional floods? Heck of a lot of regional floods isnt there? And evidently, a little old ordinary regional flood did all this:



*all around the world, species of mammals became extinct.

*At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate.

*Tens of thousands - if not millions- of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia.

*Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock -Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons - which can be traced to Scandinavia, are scattered over the plains of Denmark,northern Germany , New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere.

*erratic” rock masses resting on ground higher, sometimes thousands of feet higher, than their apparent original location.

*in Saxony, where rocks are found lying together of which some had their source in Scandinavia in the north, while others were carried there from some source in the south. . . .something moving ice cannot do.

*In the United States, England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere huge fissures in the earth have been found filled with the remains of large numbers of animals. They include mixtures of bones of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, reindeer, horse, hog, bear, and many others

*Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.”

*the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.”






My. Look at that. That is what a 'regional flood' has done. Funny thing is, have a look at all the country's mentione. Seems a little more global does it not?


I see you quoted some flood stories. Actually, that again supports the claim because they really do have something in common with the Bible flood account. That a 'big flood' came and only a few survived. Interesting that so many exist around the world of the same thing.

And yet they neglected to mention that just about every species of dinosaur has been dug out of rock that has been dated at different eras

Using the same flawed dating methods were they?

 

[Fire Storm]

now - this is ridiculous!

first off, it isnt a chance thing - simple deduction will tell you that!

BUT if you want to go down the chance route:

take away the beginning (everyone knows the begginning is at the beginning), and take away man (any fool can see he is at the end):

straight away, it is now 1 in 40,320. Lowers the odds slightly doesnt it?

Next - if you are going to have land animals, obviously you need land - so lets take land out of the equation: 1 in 5040.


Next - we all can see without a light source, there is no light - so obviously light must follow darkness: 1 in 120

Odds dont look that bad now - with a few simple steps in reasoning - it goes from 1 in 3.6 million (an impressive number) to 1 in 120 (not so impressive)

Otuka? I understand where your coming from. That theory above works because you and I and many today have studied science - even if only at school - or read books and naturally know what comes in what order.

How many other people today could assume that? Then ask yourself, could those uneducated men back then - as Roylion himslef stated they were - actually get the order right first time?

Unlikey if not impossible.

 

[Fire Storm]

Purplesoul raised an interesting question.

Now, putting aside my notions that there was not a worldwide flood 5,000 years ago, I am sure you can understand that is difficuilt to comprehend how in the space of 5,000 years, from this one vessel, people and animals have been able to populate and spread around the world.

Between 1850(1 billion) and the 1920's(2 billion) the Earths population doubled. And had doubled again by the 70's(4 billion).

Have a look at how Australia's population has grown in the last 220 years or so. Depending on how many Aborigines were already here. Nearly 20 million? Or slightly less?

Yet from the Lonely Planet site on Australia is this : "it is generally accepted that the first humans travelled across the sea from Indonesia about 70,000 years ago. The first visitors, called 'Robust' by archaeologists because of their heavy-boned physique, were followed 20,000 years later by the more slender 'Gracile' people, the ancestors of Australian Aborigines. "


70,000 years ago? Yet it only took 50-70 years to double Earths population. True more people. Not the case with Australia. Mulitply our population to get the rough figure if man had've been here 5000 years.

So what would it have been if man was REALLY here 70,000? Let me guess. Man didn't evolve a penis untill 1787?


Even more interesting what my Atlas says - :Following the devolpment of agriculture more then 10,000 years agao, people began to live in farming villiages. Around 5500 years ago, the worlds first city's apeared in the lower Tigris and Euphrates valleys in the Mesopatamia.
Citys were founded in Ancient Egypt around 5000 years ago and in China 3,600 years ago.........Cities became centres of early civilizations and through trade, their influence spread far and wide. "




Now that isnt interesting. Who can see what I'm referring to in that passage? Philip's Atlas by the way. Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.

 

[Roylion]

You said MODERN. Any of them study the same manuscripts those 'church officials' in the 2nd to 5th century had access too?

Which manuscripts were these?

Any of them study the Hebrew manuscripts that was stored in the Caesarean library that Pamphilus had collected and Jerome had access too? The same one that had the time it was completed written on it? No.

In fact it was Origen who collected the various Scriptures in the library of Caesarea, about AD 230 and 240 CE, a project funded by Origen's patron. The resultant work, the Hexapla, was massive, and has for the most part perished.

And as for Gospel of Matthew being written in Hebrew, Jerome says:“Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed.”

As I said modern scholars such as Davidson, Julicher and Baljon deny that the authorship of Matthew is by the Apostle Matthew. Their reasons for rejecting it are the following:

1. Legend, misunderstanding and irrelevancy are very prominent in this Gospel, which would not be the case if the writer had been an eye and ear witness of Jesus. The reference is to such narratives as the story of the wise men, the flight into Egypt, and the slaughter of the innocents, ch. 2; the doublet of the miraculous feeding, 14:16-21; 15: 32-38; the story of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on two animals, 21: 2, 7; the opening of the graves at the resurrection of Christ, 27: 52; the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the bribing of them, etc.
2. The Gospel of Matthew is too closely dependent on Mark, not merely in choice of matter and arrangement but in verbal detail, to be the work of an apostle.
3.The author never indicates by the use of the pronouns 'I' or 'we' that he was an eye witness of the things which he narrates.

As well as this whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Greek as been hotly debated by scholars. The difficulty of this problem arises from the fact that external testimony and internal evidence seem to disagree.

Let's have a look at the evidence for: As I have said already, the earliest testimony in regard to this matter is that of Papias and runs as follows: "Matthew composed the oracles (lo,gia) in the Hebrew dialect, and everyone interpreted them as he was able." It is clear from the original that in these words the emphasis falls on the phrase "in the Hebrew language." A lo,gia by the way is not a Gospel either, it is a collection of sayings, which of course is far from what the Gospel of Matthew reads today. The scholars Godet and Holdsworth believe that the logia of Matthew contained the discourses that we find in the Gospel of Matthew and was therefore incorporated bodily in our present Gospel, which may have incorporated parts of Matthew, but as a seperate body of work was not written by Matthew, but by another at the time I have already said. This Gospel most likely incorporated parts of Mark, parts of the lo'gia and perhaps another unknown source such as Q (which I have already mentioned)

A similar statement is found in Irenaeus who wrote later and appears to be quoting Papias: "Matthew among the Hebrews did also publish a Gospel in writing in their own language." Now as he is quoting Papias, he's suddenly changed from a collection of sayings to a Gospel.

Origen quoted by Eusebius also says that "the first Gospel was written by Matthew . . . who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language." Origen also uses Papias.

Eusebius himself makes the following statement: "For Matthew, having first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other people, delivered to them in their own language the Gospel written by himself." Eusebuous also uses as his source Papias. He also writes of Papias as "a credulous, weak minded, though pious man," That last bit is reassuring.

Jerome also states that "Matthew wrote a Gospel of Jesus Christ in Judea in the Hebrew language and letters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who believed. Who afterwards translated it into Greek, is uncertain."

Those who argue against that the present Greek Gospel does not impress one as a translation, but has all the appearance of an original work, since:
1. The hypothesis of a translation fails to account for the identity seen in certain parts of the Synoptic Gospels.
2. While the author himself indeed quotes from the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the quotations of Jesus, in regards to prophecy are almost uniformly taken from the later translations of the Septuagint. The Septuagint was a 3rd century BC translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in Alexandria, Egypt. Is it conceivable that this would be the case in a Hebrew Gospel? Indeed the similarities between the Septuagint and the Gospel of Matthew have led to the conclusion that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Alexandria or perhaps Antioch where is was widely used.
3. The Gospel contains translations of Hebrew words, as: "They shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us," 1: 23 ; "A place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull," 27: 33. (4.) There are certain explanations of Palestinian customs and habitual occurrences that would have been altogether superfluous in a Hebrew Gospel, naturally intended only for the natives of Palestine, such as those found in 22:23; 27:8, 15; 28:15.
4. The Greek version of the Gospel of Matthew was clearly in existance by the time of these writers. Why did they need to distinguish between the Greek version and a supposedly Hebrew version. If there ever was a Hebrew text ascribed to Matthew as these four Greek Church leaders [Irenaeus, Papias, Eusebius, Origen] claim it was not identical with our canonical gospel text (written in Greek) and it was lost. Thus, far from confirming the priority of canonical Matthew, these citations are solid evidence that:
- the Greek text of Matthew is a derivative work and therefore most lijkely not written by the Apostle Matthew; and
- there was a primitive gospel source that is no longer extant.."
Whatever the case the Gospel of Matthew we have was not written by the Apostle Matthew and was not written in 41 CE as you claimed.

John Shelby Spong an Anglican bishop and Biblical scholar writes that Matthew was "written in Jewish circles well before the final tearing away of Jewish Christians from their participation in synagogue worship that occurred around the year 88 C.E. That would tend to anchor the date for this gospel between 75 C.E. and 85 C.E., with the range of 80 C.E. to 82 C.E. being the best guess of most scholars."

Many scholars believe that the Gospel that Papias refers to is in fact not the Greek Gospel of Matthew that we have, but the the Gospel of the Hebrews, which both Hegesippus (late in the second century) and Eusebius (early in the fourth century) attest to the existence of this gospel (from Papias). It may well have been written in the middle of the first centuiry AD, but the whole scripture has been lost. Most critical scholars, based on analysis of the language of the Gospel of Matthew, conclude that the book we have today was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Aramaic, so that the document referred to by Papias would have a less than direct relationship to the current Gospel.

Actually, wrong again. Mark doesn't make any mention of Jerusalem's desctruction in 70 C.E either. Evidence perhaps shows his account was finished between 60-65 C.E.

Many biblical scholars believe that Mark 13:9-13 is a reference to the siege of Jerusalem and the disturbances in Judea during that time. if you have faith to believe that people can prophesy the future then I guess you would place Mark's gospel earlier than AD 70. I don't however believe in prophesy (by the way how are those hundred plus prophecies coming along) and therefore would tend to agree with the line that Mark's Gospel was written after AD 70.

There goes your theory of writers waiting untill AFTER the event to record them and claim a prophecy.

Errr, no it doesn't.

As I've already stated, I could've directed YOU to a pro-flood site which I never got one piece of info from. To me that reeeks of biasism(sic). I chose quoets from those that had seen the evidence for themselves and all had come to the same conclusion.

Well the theory of the Black Sea as being the source for many of the stories of Noah's Flood, was also the result of those who had been there and seen the evidence for themselves. Do you imagine that those who disagree with the creationists/literalist version of the Bible don't actually check their evidence themselves?

Regional flood? Regional floods? Heck of a lot of regional floods isnt there?

That correct. Many of the world's populated areas do flood on a regular basis. Many areas that are now submerged, were above land during the last ice age and they have been flooded as well. People were in existance at that time. And sometimes you get unusual floods of a catastrophic nature because of a tsumani or an earthquake and other similar phenomena. For example scientists beleive that about 500 years ago a tsunami hit the eastern coast of Australia throwning large amounts of beack sand and other sediments several kilometres inland. This isn't evidence for a world-wide flood.

And evidently, a little old ordinary regional flood did all this:

No, I'd say not. But you've yet to establish the evidence that a large world-wide flood did do or this. A world-wide flood is merely one hypothesis for what happened and in my view a most unconvincing hypothesis.

*all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. :

Who said that a world-wide flood caused species of mammals to become extinct.

*At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. :

Oh big deal. Climate change can occur for a number of reasons. A large volcanic explosion. Sun flares, a slight change in the orbit of the earth, meteor strikes, a minor variation in Greenhouse gases and so on. Where is the evidence that a flood caused the earth's climate to change?

*Tens of thousands - if not millions- of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. :

I'd like to see the actual empirical evidence for this. I've seen a claim made by you or by a book you've read. Where's the evidence that this was so? Where's the dating? Upon what science is this statement based on?

*Large masses of granite and hard metamorphic rock -Some of these blocks are of an immense size, weighing thousands of tons - which can be traced to Scandinavia, are scattered over the plains of Denmark,northern Germany , New England States and in New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, in eastern and western Canada, and elsewhere.

Again I'd like to see the actual empirical evidence for this. Where's the evidence that this was so? Where's the dating? Upon what science is this statement based on?

*erratic” rock masses resting on ground higher, sometimes thousands of feet higher, than their apparent original location.

*in Saxony, where rocks are found lying together of which some had their source in Scandinavia in the north, while others were carried there from some source in the south. . . .something moving ice cannot do.

*In the United States, England, France, southern Spain, Germany, Russia and elsewhere huge fissures in the earth have been found filled with the remains of large numbers of animals. They include mixtures of bones of the elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, reindeer, horse, hog, bear, and many others

Same again. Show me some scientific sources for this evidence. I'd like to investigate it for myself and see what geologists, palaentologists, and archaeolgists have to say on the matter.

*Every fossil is either dug out of shale, which is just floodwater mud hardened into rock, or out of floodwater sand hardened into sandstone, or frozen into permafrost.”

Every fossil is dated at the same time is it? Lucy the 4 million old hominid was drowned in the Great Flood was she? Dinosaurs and other extinct species all drowned in the Grat Flood. Is that what you're claiming with this statement?

*the Yukon district of North America: “The presence of bones, trees, peat, and other debris all mixed together down to a depth of nearly 100 feet, points to a cataclysmic flood of tremendous proportions that must have moved across the land, grinding the bodies of the animals with stones and trees and spreading the whole out over the Yukon Valley.”

This is not evidence of a world-wide flood. Don't bother repeating it. All it is is evidence for a large flood in the Yukon Valley. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by repeating it. It's not evidence for a wordl-wide flood. Simple as that.

My. Look at that. That is what a 'regional flood' has done. Funny thing is, have a look at all the country's mentione. Seems a little more global does it not?

Gee. Floods are a world wide phenomenon and have been so for hundreds of thousands of years. Thanks for pointing that out.

I see you quoted some flood stories. Actually, that again supports the claim because they really do have something in common with the Bible flood account. That a 'big flood' came and only a few survived. Interesting that so many exist around the world of the same thing.

Probably because floods are a global phenomenon, that occur on a regional scale.

Using the same flawed dating methods were they?

And what flaw-free scientific dating methods do you have? Let's see. The Bible, some early Church writers, a couple of books that you've read and....

Tell me how you're so sure that your dating is correct and scientific methods of dating are all incorrect.

 

[Roylion]

Also interesting to note is that Roylion considered Moses and co to be uneducated men.

And where did I say this?

Stop twisting my words around and taking me out of context.

Where have I ever said Moses was uneducated?

 

[Fire Storm]

“Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto’s Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change."


De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter**III - Jerome mentions Pamphilus as collecting the Hebrew manuscript in Caesarea.

As well as this whether Matthew wrote in Hebrew or Greek as been hotly debated by scholars.

He wrote it in hebrew then translated it into greek.

Whatever the case the Gospel of Matthew we have was not written by the Apostle Matthew and was not written in 41 CE as you claimed.

Me claim? Try up to 11 back then who were far closer to the orignal time of writing as opposed to some who are making assumptions.

Many biblical scholars believe that Mark 13:9-13 is a reference to the siege of Jerusalem and the disturbances in Judea during that time.

Doesnt even go close to describing the destruction. It didnt because Mark wrote it before 70 C.E

you have faith to believe that people can prophesy the future then I guess you would place Mark's gospel earlier than AD 70. I don't however believe in prophesy (by the way how are those hundred plus prophecies coming along) and therefore would tend to agree with the line that Mark's Gospel was written after AD 70.

Unsual thing to say considering the Bible is full of prophecys that were all fullfilled. A researcher, I'm supprised you don't know any.

Errr, no it doesn't.

It does. Of all the writers in the Bible, you'd think Matthew and Mark would've been eager to claim Jesus prophecy as having been fullfilled if they'd written it after it happended. Wouldn't you agree?


You reacting to those Flood examples as if I made them up. I've posted some references where I could.

Where is the evidence that a flood caused the earth's climate to change?

In roughly thousands - some sourses say 5 million - mammoths 'quick frozen' in death in Siberia.

I'd like to see the actual empirical evidence for this. I've seen a claim made by you or by a book you've read. Where's the evidence that this was so? Where's the dating? Upon what science is this statement based on?

I get the feeling your getting stuck big time because you seem to be refuting everything just because you have no answer for it. I can't believe you said that.Maybe I shouldn't go on. And you say your a researcher.

 

[Roylion]

Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto’s Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus, Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change."


De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter**III - Jerome mentions Pamphilus as collecting the Hebrew manuscript in Caesarea..

Yes I know all this. You can repeat the same evidence until you are blue in the face. How about addressing some of the evidence I've put forward. Just merely repeating what you've already said, doesn't really add weight to yuor argument.

He wrote it in hebrew then translated it into greek. ..

Who says this? Where's the evidence that Matthew, the apostle of Jesus wrote the Gospel of Matthew (that we read word for word) in Hebrew and then translated into Greek. You're just making it up now. This statement is just speculation on your part unles you give some solid reasoning behind it.

I've already stated that the Gospel of "Matthew" that Papias refers to may not be the Gospel of Matthew that is in our present Bible. Ive stated why. How about addressing those arguments for a start.

Me claim? Try up to 11 back then who were far closer to the orignal time of writing as opposed to some who are making assumptions. ..

*Sigh*

Did you read anything I wrote in the previous post? I've stated why many experts believe there are serious doubts about what Papias reported he read. The evidence for a Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew" rests on Papias. By Gospel, I mean the exact gospel as it has come down to us. There are serious doubnts that such Gospel was written as it is by Matthew. Parts of it may indeed be the work of the Apostle Matthew in either written or as an oral tradition. Howver the Gospel appears not to be, despite some early Church fathers thinking that it is.

Doesnt even go close to describing the destruction. It didnt because Mark wrote it before 70 C.E ..

And how do you know this?

Unsual thing to say considering the Bible is full of prophecys that were all fullfilled. ..

Whether they were fulfilled or not is a matter of faith and opinion, not historical fact. I've already explained two prophecies to you. Yopu're yet to present one. How about yu present a couple and we'll discuss them, (such as when they were believed to be written) and how they were fulfilled historically.

A researcher, I'm supprised you don't know any. ..

I'm not a researcher. Who says I was? Where did you get this from? I've spent time studying ancient texts, such as the Bible, and I have a collection of works on the subject but I'm not a researcher.

It does. Of all the writers in the Bible, you'd think Matthew and Mark would've been eager to claim Jesus prophecy as having been fullfilled if they'd written it after it happended. Wouldn't you agree? ..

IF they thought Jesus had "prophesised" it, yes then quite possibly. However as I said there appears to be a reference in Mark to the destruction of Jerusalem anyway.

You reacting to those Flood examples as if I made them up. I've posted some references where I could. ..

Well I've seen Phillip's Atlas, some book called "Mysteries of the Earth" and a couple of other ones that are dubious in scholarship

In roughly thousands - some sourses say 5 million - mammoths 'quick frozen' in death in Siberia...

Well which sources or references?

I get the feeling your getting stuck big time because you seem to be refuting everything just because you have no answer for it.

Well let others be the judge of whether I'm getting stuck "big time". I'm looking at your arguments and presenting counter-arguments and attempting to back them with evidence and reasoning to explain the counter-arguments. If you wish I'm happy to give references, authors etc. etc.

You on the other hand repeat the same information, address very few points I've made. Where is this Gospel of Matthew that was written in 41 CE for example. Yes I know it was in the writings of some early Church fathers. However I've given you examples of why there are considerable doubts that what Papias was referring to, was the Hebrew "Gospel of Matthew". Perhaps you could address some of those points.

I can't believe you said that.Maybe I shouldn't go on.

Why can't you believe I've said that. You made (or repeated) a claim that hundreds of thousands of mammoths were snap frozen and that this is evidence of a Great Flood. I'm asking you quite reasonably, where is the scientific evidence that hundreds of thousands of mammoths were snap-frozen and i'm also asking you how this event (if it did occur), is evidence for a world-wide flood. Scientific evidence please? For example what dates were these mammoths frozen. They should all be the same date shouldn't they if the Great Flood caused this.

And could also explain DNA analysis on the descent of humans. As I stated there is DNA analysis that many people today are descended from humans living up to 45,000 years ago. Somewhat before Noah's ark some 2,500 years ago. Don't forget we must all be descended from Noah, if the Bible is literally true.

And you say your a researcher.

No. I didn't say I was a researcher. See above.

 

[bunsen burner]

Sure. Obviousely God did the rounding up and made the animals quite during their time in the Ark.

Riiight. So God has the power to change natural animal instincts to stop them killing each other but lets humans fight wars and commit murders? Maybe God isn't so perfect and maybe, just maybe, he's a myth only believed by the gullible.

 

[Roylion]

*Tens of thousands - if not millions- of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia.

Let's have a look at this claim in a bit of detail.

First of all there have not been hundreds of thousands (or millions) of frozen mammoth carcasses found as you claimed

William Farrand in his study Frozen mammoths and modern geology made in 1961, stated up to that point that "Frozen mammoths are not common. As of 1961, only 39 have been found with some flesh preserved, and only four of those were more or less intact. Schuchert and Dunbar state that" there are records of fifty-one Siberian occurrences;

Chris Weber in 1980 made the following comments... "The reports of frozen mammoths with well-preserved flesh are greatly exaggerated. The Berezovka mammoth, perhaps the most famous example, was rather putrified; the excavators found its stench unbearable. It must have taken several days to freeze, since scavengers were able to mutilate it before it froze, and the flesh showed "deep penetrating chemical alterations as the result of very slow decay." This doesn't really support the idea of this mammoth being flash frozen by a Great Universal Flood.

In fact the Berezovka mammoth shows evidence of having been buried in a landslide, the cold mud acting as preservative and the underlying permafrost completing the process by freezing the carcass.

Anthony Sutcliff in his work "On the Track of the Ice Age Mammals", Harvard University Press, 1985 also states for example...

"The absolute age in years of the frozen carcasses was for a long time a subject of speculation. During recent years, with the availability of Carbon 14 dating, the exact age of many of them has become known, with surprising results. Their ages fall into two main groups, one ranging in age from 45,000 years to 30,000 years and a smaller number of remains from 14-11,000 years old.

Mammoth Carcass Radiocarbon Dates
Earlier Age Group

Siberia
- Adams (Lena River) Mammoth, 1799, 36,000-37,000 years
- Beresovka mammoth, 1900, more than 39,000
- Shandrin mammoth, 1970 42,000 years
- Khatanga mammoth, 1977, more than 50,000 years

Alaska
- Fairbanks, mammoth hair, 32,000-34,000 years

Later Age Group

Siberia
- Taimyr Peninsula mammoth, 1948, 11,500 years
- River Berelekh mammoth remains, 1970, 12,000 years
- Yuribemammoth, 1979, 9,700 years

Alaska
- Fairbanks, mammoth 15,400 years

There are a number of ice-age sites in Eastern europe which contain stacks of mammoth bones, very likely representing the results of human predation. That's one possible reason why mammoths declined and perhaps became extinct. Another mammoth expert Lapparent attributes the extinction of the mammoth to a gradual increase in cold and a decrease in the supply of food, rather than to a cataclysmic flood. (Guthrie 1990)

Even Christian geologist Dr. John Morris, the head of the Society for Creation Research doesn't claim that the mammoths were frozen because of a world-wide flood. He says....

"We've all heard the stories of how "millions of frozen mammoths are found preserved in Siberia, frozen so quickly their flesh could still be eaten today, complete with sub-tropical vegetation in their mouths." Temperatures two hundred degrees below zero are needed to quick-freeze an animal of such large bulk, it is claimed, requiring extraordinary catastrophism, the likes of: which creationists feel could only be associated with Noah's Flood

To answer these questions, we must first establish the facts, checking the original sources. And when we do, we find that no more than several dozen mammoths have been found frozen or partially frozen. It is true that tens of thousands of mammoth bones are found, and mammoth ivory has been mined commercially in some places, but those were not quick-frozen. These bones are found in the frozen tundra (or frozen soil below the surface), and are not found in the thick sequences (ten thousand feet thick in places) of sedimentary rock lying stratigraphically below the frozen soil. The frozen parts, are, with few exceptions, found in the frozen banks of modern rivers, usually in small lenses within the larger tundra layer. Some specimens seem to have drowned after breaking through ice covering a river."

As well as this geologic evidence would show that IF a world-wide universal flood had occurred, mammoths would have lived after the Flood. The remains are found generally in various unconsolidated (not hardened to rock) layers that lie on top of hundreds of meters of sedimentary rock.

The question is also asked as to why only mammoths and wooly rhionoceros have been found frozen. Surely if a Flood had occurred it was have snap-frozen all fauna. Why large behemoths such as mammoths and rhinocerous have been found is easily attributable to the fact that most of the remains are associated with river valleys and with fluviatile and terrestial sediments, It's likely the many mammoths became bogged down in marshy
places or fell into 'riparian gulies' or were mired in and slowly buried by
sticky mudflows, which of course helped preservation.

 

[JavaBlue]

...all around the world, species of mammals became extinct. At the same time, there was a sudden change of climate. Tens of thousands of mammoths were killed and quick-frozen in Siberia. Alfred Wallace, the well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin, considered that such a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event.Many have argued that this event was the Flood.

Love the way you christian Chauvinist twats like to juxtapose famous science personalities alongside unrelated and usually ridiculous statements thereby implying some agreement. Also love the way you use "well-known contemporary of Charles Darwin" as if this gives it even more clout when in fact being a contemporary of Darwin's - he had many - is meaningless unless you connect it somehow to the statement you are try to 'prove'.

Allow me to connect it for you since it's doubtful you even know who Alfred Wallace was. Alfred Russel Wallace was well-known (or should be well-known) as the man who independently arrived at the Theory Of Evolution by Natural Selection - 20 years after Darwin but before Darwin had published. He was agnostic (if not atheist), he helped coin the word Darwinism (the title of one of his many publications) and defended the Theory of Evolution up until his death in 1913. If not for a few 'quirks of fate', we would now be reading about Wallace's Theory of Evolution and Wallaceism.

He may have said something like "a widespread destruction must have been caused by some exceptional worldwide event", perhaps even in reference to your popsicle mammoths. However, he would have thought that anyone believing it to be a result of Noah's flood, was a complete loon.

Which is what you are.

 

[Weaver]

The question is also asked as to why only mammoths and wooly rhionoceros have been found frozen.

Also still waiting for an explanation as to why if Mammoths were around at the time of the flood, why weren't they on the ark?

 

[Fire Storm]

Hang on. Lets go back to the start.

I havnt give just one person who lays claim to the testimony on Matthew. I've given up to 11. Including two who say the Hebrew text was preserved in their day. Now his the thing. Part of what I've quoted as couple of times - "......that we regard it as proved that the book we posses had not been the subject of any sudden change."

How would they know that, Roy? That it hadn't been changed and that it was indeed the writing's of Matthew? How do you think they'd know that? What would give them the confidence that the text they were reading and even quoting from was indeed from Matthew at the time that was written on the scrolls/manuscripts?

Because even you said scripture in their day could get changed. Which some did. So obviousley they knew that it WAS possible that what they were reading could've been changed. Yet, after careful study, they ALL came to the same conclusion. Not one. but nearly a dozen men. Perhaps there were other copys or translations to compare. It wasn't just ONE. It was nearly a dozen church 'officials' who all concluded it was indeed the words of Matthew.


Yet you quote from some who doubt. And a heck of a long time after those early century 'officials' had access to fairly recent copys of the text. Which these modern historians don't have. Perhaps they're the ones viewing the wrong manuscripts?


And by the looks of it Roy, they DONT understand the sciptures or the context at all. I gathered that from the examples you posted. Like Jesus riding on two animals which is so easy to understand if you/they had've read the other accounts. In fact, what Jesus did actually fullfilled another prophecy from Zechariah -9:9.


So your putting your faith in 'historians' who have a hard time understanding the scritpures so they doubt Matthews writing. Thats confidence that they'll be right isnt it? I wonder how many other things they've been wrong on.........




And no, Mark 13:9-13 isnt describing the destruction of Jersualem. His apostles had asked him what signs would there be as regarding 'last days'. And its Mark re-telling what Jesus said to them. What to look for.

Both Matthew and Mark didnt write their accounts after 70 C.E Again, according to you, writers were writing after the event so to make it look like a prophecy. Unusual that both didn't? No. Time of their writing was very much before 70 C.E. Also Mark wrote from another angle as regards Jesus. Mark puts stress on the activites of Christ rather then on his sermons and teachings.





And Roy? There were more references then those two you mentioned. The Atlas reference was EXTREMELY interesting. You never caught on I see. Or didnt want to?



Now Java Blue brought up a very good point. Despite the difference as to how it happended, even Alfred Russell new that these findings around the world must've been the result of 'some exceptional event'.

Geology professor John McCampbell : “The essential differences between Biblical catastrophism -the Flood - and evolutionary uniformitarianism are not over the factual data of geology but over the interpretations of those data. The interpretation preferred will depend largely upon the background and presuppositions of the individual student."


Professor Fred Hoyle of University College, Cardiff, and Elizabeth Butler of Oxford University: " that if the last ice age .**.**. had taken thousands of years to take hold on the Earth, the mammoths would have had time to migrate south to a warmer climate. Their excellent state of preservation is also evidence that they were quickly frozen after death—otherwise they would have begun to decompose.”

The question is also asked as to why only mammoths and wooly rhionoceros have been found frozen.

Byron C. Nelson - The Deluge Story in Stone:

“The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation.”



William J. Miller, Emeritus Professor of Geology at the University of California at Los Angeles - An Introduction to Historical Geology (1952): “Comparatively few remains of organisms now inhabiting the earth are being deposited under conditions favorable for their preservation as fossils. .**.**. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that so vast a number of fossils are embedded in the rocks.”


“Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” The Saturday Evening Post of January 16, 1960 :

“The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. .**.**. They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. .**.**. many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. .**.**.

“Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?”



There's your answer.



Regarding the flood legends. More then one have come to this conclusion:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia : “The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood .**.**. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition."


Die Sintflut in Sage und Wissenschaft -The Deluge in Legend and Science- Dr. Johannes Riem of Germany notes: “Among all traditions there is none so general, so widespread on earth, .**.**. as the Flood tradition.”


The Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament: Genesis:

“The harmony between all these accounts is an undeniable guarantee that the tradition is no idle invention; a fiction is individual, not universal; that tradition has, therefore, a historical foundation; it is the result of an event which really happened in the ages of the childhood of mankind.”




Carbon 14 dating they used? Explains the wild dates. Can be very inaccurate. I see you havn't questioned by population 'theorys' or what the Atlas has to say. Unexplainable?

 

[Fire Storm]

I've answered that already, Weaver.

 

[Fire Storm]

A few prophecys for you all:

Micah 5.2/Luke 2.4-7 - Foretelling that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. 700 hundred years in advance.

Isaiah 50.6/Matt 26.67 - foretelling that Jesus would be struck and spit upon.

Zechariah 11.12/Matt 26.15 - Jesus betrayed for 30 pieces of silver. 500 years in advance.

Psalm 22:7.8.18/Matt 27.35,39-43 - David foretelling events regarding Jesus death. 1000 years in advance.

Daniel 9.24-27 - When messiah would appear. Length of ministry and time of death. 5 Centuries in advance.

Isaiah and Jerimiah foretold Babylons fall to the Medes and Persians in a very detailed manner. And its now all historical record as to how it happended. Diverting the Euphrates River into an artificial lake. Unusualy careless lack of security at the river gates. And the ruler who would do the conquering, Cyrus. All foretold exactly 200 years in advance.

 

[Roylion]

I havnt give just one person who lays claim to the testimony on Matthew. I've given up to 11. Including two who say the Hebrew text was preserved in their day. Now his the thing. Part of what I've quoted as couple of times - "......that we regard it as proved that the book we posses had not been the subject of any sudden change."

There's no evidence that a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew even existed. Papias, who the entire theory that there was a Hebrew Gospel, is quite clearly talking about a lo'gia. That's not a Gospel. I've said already scholars have several good reasons to believing that the Gospel of Matthew (in the form it was made canonical and the form it has come down to us) was written firstly in Greek and at least a couple of decades after 41 CE.

How would they know that, Roy? That it hadn't been changed and that it was indeed the writing's of Matthew? How do you think they'd know that? What would give them the confidence that the text they were reading and even quoting from was indeed from Matthew at the time that was written on the scrolls/manuscripts?

As far as I am aware, the whole evidence for a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew rests upon Papias...who called it a lo'gia....(not a Gospel). This may well have been the writings of Matthew, but it is very likely not to be our present Gospel, which is what I am suggesting to you.

Because even you said scripture in their day could get changed. Which some did. So obviousley they knew that it WAS possible that what they were reading could've been changed. Yet, after careful study, they ALL came to the same conclusion. Not one. but nearly a dozen men. Perhaps there were other copys or translations to compare. It wasn't just ONE. It was nearly a dozen church 'officials' who all concluded it was indeed the words of Matthew.

And the lo'gia may well have been. However the Gospel of Matthew as found in the present Bible, is likely NOT to have been written by the Apostle Matthew, for the reasons I have already stated. How about addressing some of those reasons for a start, if you want to convince me that you are correct beyond doubt.

Yet you quote from some who doubt. And a heck of a long time after those early century 'officials' had access to fairly recent copys of the text.

Which text? The Gospel or the lo'gia, that Papias attributes to Matthew. They are different. The lo'gia may have formed a source for the Gospel of Matthew and may even have been Q. However that does not mean the Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, as you claimed.

Which these modern historians don't have. Perhaps they're the ones viewing the wrong manuscripts?

Many are experts in ancient manuscripts, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls for example. Some even specialise in papyrus manuscripts.

And by the looks of it Roy, they DONT understand the sciptures or the context at all.

Perhaps they are like me and look at prophecy and whether it has been fulfilled with an objective mind and subject claims as to whether the prophecy has been fulfilled to fairly searching scrutiny.

I gathered that from the examples you posted. Like Jesus riding on two animals which is so easy to understand if you/they had've read the other accounts. In fact, what Jesus did actually fullfilled another prophecy from Zechariah -9:9.

Did he? I remain sceptical about whether he did. The only account we have of Jesus' life is from the Gospels and it seems that the authors of the Gospel whoever they were had a vested interest in seeing their "Messiah" fulfil all the relevant prophecies...which of course were well known. I notice also you made absolutely no specific comment on what I had to say about two of the "prophecies". So was Mary historically a virgin where she gave borth to Jesus, or is this a matter of faith for those wishing to see Jesus fulfill the prophecy.

So your putting your faith in 'historians' who have a hard time understanding the scritpures so they doubt Matthews writing. Thats confidence that they'll be right isnt it? I wonder how many other things they've been wrong on.........

I've quoted scholars that have spent decades studying the Scriptures. Somehow given their credentials, I put far more credence in their opinions, that yours, considering yours are unknown.

And no, Mark 13:9-13 isnt describing the destruction of Jersualem. His apostles had asked him what signs would there be as regarding 'last days'. And its Mark re-telling what Jesus said to them. What to look for..........

Your interpretation. Mark's "Little Apoclypse" is believed by many scholars to be a reference to the destruction to Jerusalem

Both Matthew and Mark didnt write their accounts after 70 C.E Again, according to you, writers were writing after the event so to make it look like a prophecy. Unusual that both didn't? No. Time of their writing was very much before 70 C.E. Also Mark wrote from another angle as regards Jesus. Mark puts stress on the activites of Christ rather then on his sermons and teachings. ..........

Matthew is different to Mark. He uses much of Mark in his own Gospel, but also had another source (which may well be the lo'gia mentioned by Papias), but as this is not conclusive the other source is generally known as Q.

And Roy? There were more references then those two you mentioned. The Atlas reference was EXTREMELY interesting. You never caught on I see. Or didnt want to?

Personally I don't see the relevance of what you are trying to imply with your reference from that tome of knowledge...the Phillips Atlas. The quotation you made can be found in history text book. What does it have to do with the fact that Aboriginals may have been in Australia up to 70,000 years ago? I also prefer to believe what experts in anthropology are telling us rather than the 'Phillips Atlas'.

Now Java Blue brought up a very good point. Despite the difference as to how it happended, even Alfred Russell new that these findings around the world must've been the result of 'some exceptional event'.

Did he actually say this, or have you taken a half statement out of context? That's not what I read. Still not evidence of a world-wide flood. A 'catastrophic event' may be a number of phenomena, such as a large volcanic explosion.

Byron C. Nelson - The Deluge Story in Stone:

“The way fishes by the millions are entombed in the rocks of England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, Switzerland, the American Rockies; the way elephants and rhinoceroses are buried by the millions in Alaska, Siberia, England, Italy, Greece; the way hippopotami are buried by the thousands in Sicily; the way reptiles are buried by the millions in western Canada, the United States, South America, Africa, Australia, to mention only a portion of such instances, absolutely require the explanation of great catastrophes for their elucidation.”

It's garbage. I've shown quite clearly that elephants and rhinoceroses are [uNOT buried by the millions in Alaska. Put forward some scientific evidence to support your claim.

William J. Miller, Emeritus Professor of Geology at the University of California at Los Angeles - An Introduction to Historical Geology (1952): “Comparatively few remains of organisms now inhabiting the earth are being deposited under conditions favorable for their preservation as fossils. .**.**. It is, nevertheless, remarkable that so vast a number of fossils are embedded in the rocks.”

Why is it remarkable? Other fossils in other types of rock simply decayed.

“Riddle of the Frozen Giants,” The Saturday Evening Post of January 16, 1960 :

“The list of animals that have been thawed out of this mess would cover several pages. .**.**. They are all in the muck. These facts indicated water as the agency which engulfed the creatures. .**.**. many of these animals were perfectly fresh, whole and undamaged, and still either standing or at least kneeling upright. .**.**.

“Here is a really shocking—to our previous way of thinking—picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not specifically designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?”

Nothing. It didn't happen. Vast herds have not been found, quick-frozen. Where is the evidence of these vast herds.

The above statement is just "science-fiction" and I use the term "science" very loosely.

There's your answer.

A pretty poor argument, backed up by no specific evidence except the made up fantasies of Bible literalists.

Regarding the flood legends. More then one have come to this conclusion:

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia : “The universality of the flood accounts is usually taken as evidence for the universal destruction of humanity by a flood .**.**. Moreover, some of the ancient accounts were written by people very much in opposition to the Hebrew-Christian tradition."

I've already answered this. You haven't rebutted any of my specific points, except to repeat the same rubbish in a different form and from a different creationist author.

Die Sintflut in Sage und Wissenschaft -The Deluge in Legend and Science- Dr. Johannes Riem of Germany notes: “Among all traditions there is none so general, so widespread on earth, .**.**. as the Flood tradition.”

I've answered this as well. This is third time you've quoted this. Quoting it again, doesn't add to the strength of your case.

The Historical and Critical Commentary of the Old Testament: Genesis:

“The harmony between all these accounts is an undeniable guarantee that the tradition is no idle invention; a fiction is individual, not universal; that tradition has, therefore, a historical foundation; it is the result of an event which really happened in the ages of the childhood of mankind.”

Which could easily be matched by a quote by archaeologist John Romer in his book "Testament: The Bible and History. "...the Bible's story of the flood had had it's origins in the terrible ancient floods of ancient Mespotamia when the Tigris and the Euphrates overflowed their banks".

Carbon 14 dating they used? Explains the wild dates. Can be very inaccurate. I see you havn't questioned by population 'theorys' or what the Atlas has to say. Unexplainable?

Carbon14 dating may have difficulties in pin-pointing exact dates, however it is useful in determining ages in antiquity. It's clear that mammoths were not quick-frozen at the time that Noah's Flood was said to occur. Indeed they were not quick-frozen at all and I haven't read any specific scientific evidence from you that they were.

 

[Fire Storm]

There is more then one person back then laying claim to Matthew being written in Hebrew. I've quoted from several. And your doubting them because some 'historian's now - who dont understand some passages in the Bible - say he didnt?

Perhaps if one person back then was claiming such. but nearly a dozen? Some from different times? They were convinced. And rightly so.


Mary was a virign. She wasn't married and to be pregant before marriage was a stoning offence. Which is why as soon as she was told by Gabriel she would give birth without intercourse, she left for 3 months and visited someone I cant remember.

More to come.....

 

[Roylion]

Even though we're now getting into theology rather than history, I'll make a few comments on a couple of "prophecies"

Micah 5.2/Luke 2.4-7 - Foretelling that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem. 700 hundred years in advance.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
The gospel of Matthew (2:5-6) claims that Jesus' birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this raises a couple of problems.

"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but quite possibly refers to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the grandson of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (2 Chronicles:50-52, 4:4).

The prophecy (if that is what it is) perhaps does not refer to the Messiah, at least as we understand Jesus, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from verse 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did.

The Gospel of Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this perhaps , to make the verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan. 5:2

Even if Jesus was born into the family of Bethlehem, then he wasn't of the line of David (either in the genealogy of Jesus given in Matthew or the completely different one given in Luke...hence not the Messiah)

I guess it depends on your interpretation of the Scripture and faith.

I'll get to some of others later.

 

[Roylion]

There is more then one person back then laying claim to Matthew being written in Hebrew. I've quoted from several. And your doubting them because some 'historian's now - who dont understand some passages in the Bible - say he didnt? .....

Why do you make the claim that Scriptural experts don't understand the Bible. What makes you the expert?

Perhaps if one person back then was claiming such. but nearly a dozen? Some from different times? They were convinced. And rightly so. .....

Not so. For reasons I have explained, none of which you have addressed.

Mary was a virign. .....

There is no historical verification for this. Again this is a matter of faith, not historical fact.

She wasn't married and to be pregant before marriage was a stoning offence. .....

Was it?

Which is why as soon as she was told by Gabriel she would give birth without intercourse, she left for 3 months and visited someone I cant remember. .....

A nice story, but again Matthew nor Mark, or John mention it. Weren't Matthew and John meant to be apostles? The only mention is in Luke, the follower of Paul.

 

[^Eagle^]

Well technically I'm christian.

Surely the bible's opposition to homosexuality (also Judaism and Islam is against it) is down to the need to populate.

With Juadaism, its more the 'waste' of a sperm, cuz the Torah says 'do not spill your seed onto the floor', wich the rabbis translate as do not waste a seed(directly talking to males), seed=sperm, so technically in the Jewish religion man-man relationships are outlawed, yet woman-woman relationships, whilst not encouraged, are permitted[WOOHOO! ]

but more importantly i hate it when people directly disrespect other religions...if we think someones ways are hypocritical we keep it to ourselves. what good does it do to go onto the net and tell others that Christianity is hypocritical???? It's OK to believe someone's wrong, but you've gotta respect everyone's beliefs[unless they directly conflict your own]. Anyways, the religious Christians can probably perfectly explain this..unless they already have(cbf reading the whole post)

 

[bunsen burner]

if we think someones ways are hypocritical we keep it to ourselves.

In that case you should keep this very feeling to yourself too.

what good does it do to go onto the net and tell others that Christianity is hypocritical????

1300 odd posts suggest people are quite happy to talk about it.

It's OK to believe someone's wrong, but you've gotta respect everyone's beliefs[unless they directly conflict your own].

What sort of comment is this?

Anyways, the religious Christians can probably perfectly explain this..

1300 hundreds posts and they haven't been able to explain anything yet.