The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Robin
I have made myself blind consulting the runes and my hands are raw from casting dice. I stand knee deep in the entrails of chickens and have ruined my back studying the movements of stars. I have worn out my elbow and wrist dealing cards and have a permanent squint from pondering the layout of tea-leaves. I have lung cancer from smoking the pipe of many visions and terminal cirrhosis from drinking the wine of prophesy. One nostril is knackered from inbreathing white happy-powder and the other I use to inhale laughing gas. And after all of that, my powers as a great and mighty prophet have grown and I hereby make the following prophesy:

…….I guess that proves that occult practices can be very bad for your health then!!!!!……….:eek:


Robin
You'll have to give me more wine and weed if you want to know the rest of it.

I will not – you have already 'destroyed youself' with your soothsaying antics – and at the end of it all, you have only brought forth a (false) 'Gnat’!!!!!:D


…….and Wicknight never answered my question – so I think I will ask it again….
What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????


Wicknight
Prophets, of all religions, use the ability of predicting the future as evidence that they really do speak to God, or that when they speak to God it is of more importance.

The problem with that is that they can't all be speaking to gods and goddesses. Even from a religious point of view most of them are making it up.

So how do you pick which ones are and which ones aren't?

What you say is indeed true and you raise a very important question.
....and as usual, the Word of God has the answer:-
Deut 13:1-3 “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

False prophets can and do arise to test us – but true prophets will always remain in accordance with the Word of God – and that is why Wicknight’s advice to “read your Bible” is so important for all Christians !!!!!:D

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

No but you are kinda missing the point. Lots of people claim to speak with God (a lot of people on this forum claim to speak with God). If we listened to everyone who thinks they speak to a god no religion would get anywhere.

Prophets, of all religions, use the ability of predicting the future as evidence that they really do speak to God, or that when they speak to God it is of more importance.

The problem with that is that they can't all be speaking to gods and goddesses. Even from a religious point of view most of them are making it up.

So how do you pick which ones are and which ones aren't?

Probably the same way one picks which bits of science one disagrees with.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????

The link is called "science" ... something you clearly know very little about (have you figured out what a mutation is yet?? :rolleyes:).

Most good book shops have a section dedicated to it. I suggest you start there.

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

…….and Wicknight never answered my question – so I think I will ask it again….

What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????

Leaving aside your usual mischaracterisation of evolution, the answer is that the theory of evolution is a product of exactly the same scientific methods.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

J C wrote:

False prophets can and do arise to test us – but true prophets will always remain in accordance with the Word of God

Which is why the Jews don't accept Jesus as a prophet (let alone son of God), since he didn't remain in accordance with the Word of God revealed in the Old Testament. For a start he isn't descended from David. Joseph might be, but then Joseph isn't Jesus' father. Secondly Jesus altered the nature of the Law, which it actually says in the Old Testament the prophet wouldn't do. This is before you get into the whole problem of the historical facts of his birth, such as the fact that there was never the migration to home towns that is supposed to have got Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there. But I doubt you would accept history over the Bible anyway ....

J C

Originally Posted by J C
What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????

Wicknight wrote:

The link is called "science" ... something you clearly know very little about (have you figured out what a mutation is yet?? :rolleyes:).

I fully accept the importance of science in the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc.........

..........but surely an unfounded belief in the spontaneous 'morphing' of Muck into Man - is some type of religious belief ........ and not in the least scientific?????

As for mutation, YOU still haven't explained why Evolutionists are so (wisely) reluctant to expose themselves to mutagenic chemicals and radiation IF mutation is the “fundamental process at the heart of evolution” – then ??

Evolutionists KNOW that mutation DESTROYS genetic information – and they therefore sensibly avoid increasing their own mutagenic potential – yet the tell everybody that will listen to them that mutagenesis was the mechanism that spontaneously generated Man from muck !!!!!:D

Zombrex

J C wrote:

I fully accept the importance of science in the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc.........

..........but surely an unfounded belief in the spontaneous 'morphing' of from Muck into Man - is some type of religious belief ........ and not in the least scientific?????

LOL .. "Spontaneous morphing" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .... is that like the Mighty Morphing Power Rangers?

*sigh* ... JC you are an idiot

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
What possible link could there be between an unfounded belief in the spontaneous generation of life from muck – and the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc??????



I fully accept the importance of science in the production of Playstations, antibiotics, hospital scanners, telephones, etc.........

..........but surely an unfounded belief in the spontaneous 'morphing' of Muck into Man - is some type of religious belief ........ and not in the least scientific?????

I guess that particular belief might well be - but I take it that you haven't yet noticed that only you and the other creationists believe that's what the theory of evolution is?

This is kind of what makes it difficult here, JC. What you believe to be the "theory of evolution" looks nothing like the scientific theory that goes by the same name.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

Sure you can debate whether it is accurate or innaccurate surely. I'm not entirely certain of how we should focus on it. You are free to discuss what you like I put a question mark in there "we are discussing prophets from a Christian / Jewish perspective?", as I wasn't entirely sure of where we are coming from.
Prophecy is a very different thing in different religion. Islam is probably the closest to Christianity, but there are only 3 prophets in Islam whereas there are much much more in Christianity and Judaism.

This may be of interest.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

That's interesting indeed but I don't intend to convert any of you. Finding religion is a personal search.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

That's interesting indeed but I don't intend to convert any of you. Finding religion is a personal search.

Apologies - actually it was more from the point of its coverage of prophecy!

cordially,
Scofflaw

stevejazzx

J C wrote:

Evolutionists KNOW that mutation DESTROYS genetic information – and they therefore sensibly avoid increasing their own mutagenic potential – yet the tell everybody that will listen to them that mutagenesis was the mechanism that spontaneously generated Man from muck !!!!!

__________________

Have you seen the XMen trilogy? They're doing it now!
Serioulsy do you expect an honest answer to this question? You are honestly enquiring as to why scientists are not rolling around in vats of mutagenic chemicals? Honestly? Is this supposed to some kind of attempt to criticise evolution? Honestly?:eek: :rolleyes: :eek: :cool: ...oh yeah and stop dong that aswell please

Zombrex

stevejazzx wrote:

__________________

Have you seen the XMen trilogy? They're doing it now!
Serioulsy do you expect an honest answer to this question? You are honestly enquiring as to why scientists are not rolling around in vats mutagenic chemicals? Honestly? Is this supposed to some kind of attempt to criticise evolution? Honestly?:eek: :rolleyes: :eek: :cool: ...oh yeah and stop dong that aswell please

As Scofflaw said JC has "jumped the shark" with his children mutate as they grow and spontaneous morphing comments .. and just like a bad TV series we can expect his posts to get more and more incoherent until eventually Bob Ewing is going to show up alive and well in JC's shower and his posts were actually all a dream

Son Goku

J C wrote:

As for mutation, YOU still haven't explained why Evolutionists are so (wisely) reluctant to expose themselves to mutagenic chemicals and radiation IF mutation is the “fundamental process at the heart of evolution” – then ??

Evolutionists KNOW that mutation DESTROYS genetic information – and they therefore sensibly avoid increasing their own mutagenic potential

: (:o :mad:) =>:cool:

Then formally taking : :mad: :cool: and raising a :cool: we see your assumption is fundamentally flawed.

Son Goku

Wicknight wrote:

As Scofflaw said JC has "jumped the shark" with his children mutate as they grow and spontaneous morphing comments .. and just like a bad TV series we can expect his posts to get more and more incoherent until eventually Bob Ewing is going to show up alive an well in JC's shower

I thought he jumped the shark in season 2 when he announced that ejaculate is God's most magnificent creation. Although to be fair we already had evil lesbian museum curators and lions who eat "deep sea cooked" post-flood zebras.

Scofflaw

stevejazzx wrote:

Have you seen the XMen trilogy? They're doing it now!
Serioulsy do you expect an honest answer to this question? You are honestly enquiring as to why scientists are not rolling around in vats mutagenic chemicals?

Mmmmm....feel the benzene...mmmm....I'm meeelting...or mutaating... there's apparently no difference...

Son Goku wrote:

I thought he jumped the shark in season 2 when he announced that ejaculate is God's most magnificent creation.

I'd forgotten about that one. Thanks for not reminding me sooner.

rolling in vats of mutagenic chemicals laughing (RIVOMCL!),
Scofflaw

bonkey

Son Goku wrote:

: (:o :mad:) =>:cool:

Then formally taking : :mad: :cool: and raising a :cool: we see your assumption is fundamentally flawed.

I'm sold.

pH

I'm still waiting for J C (or indeed any other creationist) to explain scientifically the presence of Iron (or indeed any star-forged element) on earth.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

I'm still waiting for J C (or indeed any other creationist) to explain scientifically the presence of Iron (or indeed any star-forged element) on earth.

You mean other than the "God put it there for us.." explanation

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

You mean other than the "God put it there for us.." explanation

A bit unscientific, though, isn't it?


cordially,
Scofflaw

pH

Wicknight wrote:

You mean other than the "God put it there for us.." explanation

Yet again you answered for them, which allows them avoid answering themselves.

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

A bit unscientific, though, isn't it?


cordially,
Scofflaw

Doesn't seem to bother them putting it forward as a "scientific" explanation.

As I said to BC (I think), I'm unaware of any scientific model or theory based on Creationism. And so far no one can provide one.

The only thing ever given as any kind of explanation is "God did it"

Which is why I'm confident in saying that Wolfsbane, BC, JC and Jakkass are anti-science, even if they might not realise this themselves.

Zombrex

pH wrote:

Yet again you answered for them, which allows them avoid answering themselves.

I think if they were prepared to answer questions like that honestly we wouldn't be on page 254 of this thread

You know you aren't going to get an answer pH. They can't answer properly because they don't have a proper answer. At least posters like Jakkass realise they don't understand the theories they reject, and have no scientific reason for rejecting them. If only Wolfsbane, BC and JC realised this too.

You are just going to get more nonsense and possibly a link to Answers In Genesis

bonkey

pH wrote:

Yet again you answered for them, which allows them avoid answering themselves.

Only if they wish to implicitly agree that this is the answer they would have offered.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

You mean other than the "God put it there for us.." explanation

Or the existence for anything explanation, 'it just happened'.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Which is why the Jews don't accept Jesus as a prophet (let alone son of God), since he didn't remain in accordance with the Word of God revealed in the Old Testament. For a start he isn't descended from David. Joseph might be, but then Joseph isn't Jesus' father.....

His mother is also of th ehouse of David, as is Joseph, that is why they had to go to Bethlehem, or the city of David for th ecensus.

Wicknight wrote:

Secondly Jesus altered the nature of the Law, which it actually says in the Old Testament the prophet wouldn't do.....

And this prophecy is where? And where did Jesus change the nature of the Law? Jesus explained the nature of the Law, away from the Pharisees interpretation and application of it.

Wicknight wrote:

This is before you get into the whole problem of the historical facts of his birth, such as the fact that there was never the migration to home towns that is supposed to have got Mary to Bethlehem for Jesus to be born there. But I doubt you would accept history over the Bible anyway ....

Well, wicknight, your ignorance of history shines through again.

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt: seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotment.

Roman Governmet order dated AD104.


The practice of the census was real and did happen. There is another papyrus from AD48 telling of a census at that time as well.
So for it to have happened in or about 4BC is not a stretch.

Son Goku

BrianCalgary wrote:

Or the existence for anything explanation, 'it just happened'.

I hope you mean that to be the standard atheist explanation, not the standard scientific explanation. There's no theory that says "it just happened".

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

His mother is also of th ehouse of David, as is Joseph, that is why they had to go to Bethlehem, or the city of David for th ecensus.

I assume you are referring to the idea that Luke's genealogy is actually talking about Mary.

He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,

You have to assert that the "son" of Heli is actually means "son-in-law" and that Heli is actually Mary's father.

There is no evidence for this beyond wishful thinking about Greek translations, and the fact that the genealogies don't match.

In fact Christians didn't start doing this wishful thinking until the 15th century, when one would assume people started to notice that the genealogy doesn't make sense.

BrianCalgary wrote:

And where did Jesus change the nature of the Law?

We have been over this before -

Matt 19
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."

Jesus is pretty blatantly saying you are not to do what Moses said you can do, it is not correct, do what I tell you. As the Jews are forever pointing out this is exactly what the Old Testament said the prophet of the Lord would not do. He should not alter the Law based on his own interpretation.

The inevitable reply from Christians is "But Jesus can interpret the law differently, he is God after all"

BrianCalgary wrote:

The practice of the census was real and did happen.

Census's happened all the time in Rome. That isn't the issue.

First of all the census of Quirinius which is the census that is supposed to have got Jesus to Bethlehem happened after the death of Herod the Great. The problem is that Jesus is supposed to have been born during the reign of Herod. Quirnius was made governer of Syria in 6AD, 10 years after Herod died.

Luke says Jesus started his ministry in "the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar" which as 27 CE. He also says he was "about thirty years old" which would put his birth around 3 BCE, which matches with Herod the Great, but doesn't match with the census of Quirinius.

Secondly the idea that the Romans would require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem (the city of David) under the idea that was the great great great great....great grandson of David is nonsense.

The Romans would have no idea that he was descended from David. While some censuses were based on tribal records the idea that the Bethlehem administration would have records of Joseph (and one assumes all other descendent's of David) in that detail doesn't hold up. Would they have records of everyone across the known world who was descend from David?

bonkey

BrianCalgary wrote:

Gaius Vibius Maximus, Prefect of Egypt: seeing that the time has come for the house to house census, it is necessary to compel all those who for any cause whatsoever are residing out of their provinces to return to their homes, that they may both carry out the regular order of the census and may also attend diligently to the cultivation of their allotment.

I would be incredibly surprised if the Romans did not consider the home of a married couple to be their own place of residence, rather than the place of residence of some ancestor of one or other of them.

Is there any evidence to suggest that they meant otherwise?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Long ago on this thread I asked yourself and JC for peer reviewed scientific papers outlining any of the theories you are talking about. I didn't even require that they were peer-reviewed in established scientific journals (since you claim there is a conspiricy against Creationists), peer reviewed in Creationists journals would be enough.

I got nothing back.

Hmm. Just off the top of my head: CRS Quarterly http://creationresearch.org/crsq.html

But you should see this non-creationist article also:

Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?

by Frank J. Tipler
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000059.html