| FORUMS |
Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:
Ask A Girl
Ask A Guy
Dating & Love Advice
District Of Columbia
Event Hosts forum
Health & Fitness
Plentyoffish Get Togethers
Poems And Quotes
Prince Edward Island
Recipes & Cooking
Sex and Dating
Technology and computers
Volunteer Moderators Only
Thread: Since I became very realistic, I just can't believe in God anymore
Since I became very realistic, I just can't believe in God anymore
Posted: 1/13/2011 8:43:00 AM
Your thoughts please
that's ok God doesn't believe in atheists either lol
Swine flu the biggest threat EVER
Posted: 10/9/2009 11:26:20 PM
Here's a summary: vaccination itself sickens potentially thousands. Deaths and serious illnesses are exceedingly rare, and when known to be caused by the vaccine itself, it's typically non-flu vaccines for which risks are already known [eg., polio]. However,
flu vaccine alone prevents deaths and hospitalizations of MILLIONS,
either directly by vaccination, or by the resulting herd immunity.
The fact is- (and multiple reliable studies show) that
flu shots are ineffective in every age group.
Though highly reputable publications document this information hardly seems to matter to those who continually promote their use. http://newswithviews.com/Tenpenny/sherri6.htm
Furthermore, most people suffering from fever, fatigue, cough and aching muscles think they have the flu. They do not. Instead, they have an "influenza-like illness" (ILI) associated with many different "germs" such as rhinoviruses, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), adenoviruses, parainfluenza viruses, etc., but NOT the flu virus. MMWR.2001;50(44):984-986
Every year people are urged to get the flu shot. According to the media, the medical establishment and the government, we are facing a possible flu epedemic, the flu shot is safe and it saves lives. It is also stated that every year, the flu kills over 30,000 Americans ever year. That is simply NOT true either. Government statistics lump flu and pneumonia deaths together, but flu deaths are only a small fraction of the total.
In 2002 when flu plus pneumonia deaths were reported at over 60,000, only 753 were flu deaths. In 2001 the number of flu deaths was 267.
Does this justify giving a poorly tested and dangerous vaccine to millions of people?
Simonsen L et al. Impact of influenza vaccination on seasonal mortality in the US elderly population. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2005;165;265-272
Something else to be considered for those choosing to accept a shot 'in the dark':
1)When poison is taken by the mouth, the internal defense system has a chance to quickly eject some of it by vomiting, but when the poisons are shot directly into the body, bypassing all the natural safeguards, these dangerous poisons circulate immediately throughout the entire body in a matter of seconds and keep on circulating until all the cells are poisoned.
2)Among many other toxins laden within most vaccinations is the neuro-toxin Mercury. There are 25 micrograms of mercury per dose in most flu shots. That number is five times the maximum amount judged safe by the CDC for a 110 lb. person. Most people don't know this. In 1999 goverment agencies called for the removal of mercury in vaccines. However, many vaccines are still permitted to have unsafe levels of mercury. Some of this year's flu vaccines still contain mercury.
3) They also contain: Aluminum, Ammonium Sulfate, Beta-Propiolactone, Gelatin,Genetically modified Yeast,Formaldehyde,Human and Animal cells,Latex Rubber,Micro-Organisms,Monosodium Glutamate, Phenol/Phenoxyethanol, Polysorbate 80, Tri(n) Butylphosphate, among 'other' highly suspected and severe risk
adjuvant ingredients that very well may have been developed for use with these vaccines. I won't even elaborate on what all these ingredients have a potential for on the scale of possible causitive degenerative diseases.
Posted: 8/31/2009 7:44:55 AM
a friend of mine told me she had had it and I did some research awhile back. It seems it is a result of severe B vitamin defficiency. I would definitely prefer to go the natural route before taking medications for this.
Influencing another's faith.. where to draw the line?
Posted: 4/27/2009 1:11:31 AM
What are the methods you use to bring non-believers over to your faith?
~simply sharing what God has done in your life to draw you to your belief pattern. Most importantly however, would be the power of prayer and intercession on the other's behalf.
Do you draw a line on the methods used? Or is there a line in your mind?
~ I do. One should always entreat others as they would like to be treated. There should be a limit IMO as to how far one goes in proselityzing to others. For a Fundamentalist Christian believer, they should be sensitive and aware of the fact that salvation is ultimately a work and function of God's Holy Spirit (something not entirely within their own control). There are other considerations however if one were to review testimonial evidences and experiences pertaining to such events. In one case, a young man was at a Christian meeting and allegedly received a vision of his own father in a state of hellfire and torment. In said vision, the father asked the son why he had given up and stopped praying for him. In that instant the son repented for giving up on his father and prayed that God would save his dad. Allegedly, the son discovered to his amazement that his father had been very depressed around the time of this occurance and was contemplating suicide when an elderly woman knocked at his door, came in and prayed with him for salvation. According to what I remember, this father passed away not long after the event. It seems from what I have gathered in testimonial evidences, that the God of this universe desires for people to plead the case of others where spiritual matters are concerned. There have been many spiritual encounters wherein people are told to pray or ask God for a thing. So the question may be asked also; "Should we draw a line where certain situations exist?" certainly in cases where one's own family members are involved, there is a finer line. But do we differentiate between one's family and those of the people or families of the Earth? Such impartiality would seem or appear wrong in a way. For if we care for others as much as ourselves--would we not want the best for all and not just our own personal family members? Such partiality may not be a correct view at all possibly.
Is a person's salvation justification for any methods used?
And for all those in between.. what do you think is the greatest way to influence another spiritually?
~by telling them the truth as you believe it where matters of faith and belief are concerned.
Should Christians Be Vegetarians?
Posted: 10/24/2008 3:53:47 AM
^^^^^^^^^ahhh yes well...I was a mere lad at the time of the writing but it is good to see you are still in the game and organized to boot. I do have an argument I wish to present in reference to "evidence" for the history of Christ. Of course, it will only deal with the historical, archaeological, and medical data concerning the death of Jesus of Nazareth. Hope to see you there. And no, I have nothing further to add to the subject of Christians and vegetarianism....except that the "Daniel fast" described in the Old Testament was a very healthy construct in proving points for robust Vegan health pursuits. Ironically, it was then Daniel, who was thrust into the meat-eaters den and still came out a winner and cancer-free I'm sure. At least he didn't have any major organs impacted from his diet or experience. My only thought is whether he returned to a meat-eating diet.
Should Christians Be Vegetarians?
Posted: 10/23/2008 5:46:22 PM
There is no absolute evidence of Jesus's existence or proof to the truth of any of the accounts written in the bible.
you are incorrect in my opinion. There is considerable medical and scientific provable evidence FOR the account of Jesus to be true particularly in the case of the crucifixion in accordance to the Biblical textual account. I can take it to another thread if you like. Florensic science backs the detailed accounts of the Gospel leading to and during the passion account of Christ's death. One would find themselves arguing with facts that could not have been known or planted almost two thousand years ago.
Should Christians Be Vegetarians?
Posted: 10/2/2008 6:05:49 PM
^^^^^^^^again, I see no contention where the taking of an animal's life for our nourishment is involved. The thought of a deer being pierced by an arrow is cruel indeed to some...and justifiable to others. And again, I see no other way to get that food on the plate so to speak...except that the animal must die in some way, shape or form. Some would view the simple taking as a cruel act whereas some only object to the cruelty of captivity, treatment or abuse. It is a difficult thought to think of just 'how' these things come to be for our gain....but one should probably ask themselves also what they would do if they had no farms or butcher or grocery store...to supply their own food needs.... Would we become strict Vegetarans and live off our garden supply? What about winters? What then? It stands to reason that at some given point--we would need to slay an animal or fish in order to survive at all.
Though in today's world of escalating cancers and such, it is more than likely a much healthier choice to abstain from many meats that are not organically grown and more likely to destroy our overall health in the long run. Perhaps we should be taking a closer look at some of those concerns rather.
Should Christians Be Vegetarians?
Posted: 10/2/2008 5:11:23 PM
Most Christians believe in the Commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" and are Peacemakers who are trying to stop war, capital punishment, abortions, or any other form of killing. However, most Christians readily eat meat and don't mind that animals have been killed to supply their meal. A part of me thinks that Christians should be Vegetarians. It seems most Vegetarians are New Agers, Hippies, and Health Conscious types of people. How do other people feel on this issue? Should Christians and other God Believers be Vegetarians?
~methinks Jesus ate pretty well to include fish, poultry, lamb and a host of other Palestinian plates. The Apostle Paul stated to "not forbid the eating of meats..." or something to that regard. Perhaps we should add a new commandment--"Thou shalt not judge the plate of another." I have a good Baptist friend who is a full-blown Vegan eater...My argument with him is "well Jesus ate fish right?" He states, "Well yes, but today's fish is so corrupted and not as clean..etc.," I say, "Give me a break--give me a break--break me off a piece of that Haddock..."
Christians who are passionate about the human rights of others needn't be concerned with what meat they eat truthfully. And just because John the Baptist ate locust and wild honey, does not signify that all Christians need to prescribe to a diet the likes of
a Vegetarian. I'm quite sure that what God has provided in our food-chain environment was provided for our nourishment and benefit to include MANY animals. I mean there's people that eat squirrels and possum for God's sake. Far be it for me to try and stop them...hey at least they'll leave some more Turkey and steak for the rest of us..hee hee.
Then there are those who view the taking of a deer's life or some other animal as abominable...hence, the ill-view of hunters etc., Well it seems to me that everybody and their brother, sometimes even wives, are into hunting...so there 'ya go. It seems like quite the natural progression if you ask me..
Personally, I prefer to shoot a bird such as Turkey...but that's just me.
Pastor or Porn Star?
Posted: 9/3/2008 4:31:43 PM
Very important mission Fitguy, will volunteer for this mission, pick you up tomorrow morning?
DUNK!! lol ..good to see 'ya and I see you got it down finally! awesome.
~too busy for any road trips right now but perhaps we can journey somewhere in the future!
Nothing would actually surprise me. Back in the early 80s there was a stripper who got alot of attention claiming to "strip for God". Not sure how many Churches brought her in to speak though. Then a couple of years back there was a story on CNN about a Christian Nudist Camp down in the Carolinas.
closest thing I saw was more recently -there was a former stripper who's life mission now is to seek out and speak to other strippers re. the pitfalls of the industry and how there is a 'way' out.
Pastor or Porn Star?
Posted: 8/23/2008 5:07:53 PM
Has anyone else happened to see a TV Minister named Melissa Scott? I have never been a fan of TV ministers, but this woman blew me away. For one thing, she is stunningly beautiful. She wears black clothing and a clerical collar and intreprets Bible passages from the Greek. At the end of the show she sings a hymn and sings beautifully.
Yes--I have seen her recently in the past year though she may have been on for years though...as her husband--Dr. Gene Scott has been. I would agree she is beautiful and does sing as such as well. When I first saw her on the program I immediately thought it may have been Scott's daughter..but it soon became aparrant it's his wife. I'm not even sure he's alive still...but I always got a charge outta the old guy..with his cigars back in the day. It's been years since I've tuned into the show...but it certainly has gone thru some changes. She is quite the pistol with her adamant stand for God's word...though I think she lacks in the public speaking department...the messages are all over the place and the audience gets quite involved it seems.
As for allegations of porn...it would not be out of the realm of possibility but I wouldn't put much stock on it in this case. A google on Dr. Gene Scott might yield more answers to the history of this peculiar beautiful woman of God. I have thought of venturing out to California myself to more thoroughly investigate the matter.
ADAMN AND EVE AND CAIN AND ABEL...WHO ELSE???
Posted: 8/20/2008 7:51:41 PM
"when he arrived in Nod, he then "took a wife"....it is hard to believe that he would have taken a wife (one of his presumed sisters) from the "garden" and taken her with him into Nod!
not so hard. The verses say: Genesis 4:16,17
"And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
here's a play on the English: Gene-says sis...(hmm)lol
the word, "knew"in the above context does in no way refer to "getting to know" or "becoming acquainted with." It is more of a direct reference to and connected to the procreation of the species obviously. Cain doubtless
going to the land of Nod and took her there with him. As to the question of- who was she and where did he get her??--we know that in Genesis 5:3-5 Adam in his long life of 930 years begat many sons and daughters. There can be little doubt that Cain married one of those numerous daughters as his wife. If the whole Adamic race was to descend from a single pair, the sons and daughters had to intermarry. However, as the race increased, it remained no longer necessary for men to marry their own sisters. As late as the time of Abraham, that patriarch married his half sister (Gen. 20:12). Later God by special commandment forbade the marriage of brother and sister (Lev. 18:9; and such marriage would now be sin because of the commandment of God. Yet, it was not sin in the dawn of the race, when the only male and female inhabitants of the earth were brothers and sisters.
I do have a question for biblical literalists. Since the two versions differ substantially, in particular with respect to the order in which man and woman and animals were created, how is this reconciled? I mean the question respectfully. While we do differ, I am simply trying to understand that viewpoint.
My personal beliefs tend toward the view that God, having created the world in all it's splendor, chooses to use natural means rather than supernatural means to accomplish things. After all, having created all of these wonderful tools, why should God not be allowed to use them? I realize that opinions may differ on this. But taking that as a hypothesis, one would expect that God caused humans to come from lower forms of life, and that Adam and Eve were designated persons, probably not at all the only ones around like themselves, but representative of the attainment of a gradual trend toward humanity.
I realize that those who dislike mixing evolution with God are going to disagree. I say fine. We can respectfully disagree.
But it does explain the whole thing. Before shooting it down, may I ask the courtesy of an alternate explanation that also explains the whole thing?
Here's a point to ponder; in regards to order and the way Genesis is stated and written...we see how in Genesis 1 for example, there is light appearing before the existence of the sun...seemingly absurd to many..yet..anyone agreeing to this absurdity is only showing their ignorance of modern science. Anyone familiar with the nebular hypothesis, commonly accepted today, knows that there was cosmic light ages before the sun became differentiated from the general numilous nebulous mass as a separate body. In fact, one of the greatest scientific thinkers of the nineteenth century, Professor James D. Dana. of Yale, once commented, that one reason that he believed the Bible to be the word of God was because of the "marvelous accord of the order of creation given in Genesis with that worked out by the best scientific investigation."
Furthermore, if we were to throw the Bible account overboard and adopt the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, we would not relieve matters at all, for in that case our early ancestors would have been beasts, and the father and mother of the human race would be descendants of the same pair of beasts, brother and sister beasts. Take whatever theory of the origin of the human race that we may, we are driven to the conclusion that in the
early history of the race there was the necessary intermarriage of the children of the same pair.
Now ask yourself this-- Why would God..who holds all majesty and power...in His hand...desire for His human race...His people..(who may even be created in His own IMAGE)...to develop and descend from beasts? It makes little or no sense at all IMO.
*- This thread was left open in the hop it might turn around but should have been closed from the get-go as redundant...and perhaps a tad on the bashing/trolling side. Judicious use of the
function and a little reading would reveal
threads on these concepts in particular literalism versus symbolism. As such these are really redundant, and are now closed. -TheMadFiddler-*
Jesus vs Spiderman
Posted: 4/24/2008 4:22:13 AM
B) Spiderman's strength can't even topple The Incredible Hulk's strength levels. (who happens to be under The Thing's...lol....)
correction:(who happens to be just a few notches above The Thing's)
Jesus vs Spiderman
Posted: 4/23/2008 4:26:45 PM
After a few hand assisted karate kicks it became evident that Jesus was being allowed to win the contest. It made me wonder if this was a fair fight or was being unconsciously determined by the religious bias of the puppeteer.
Ahhh...but how do we know that perhaps Stan Lee hasn't converted and is now making Christian Outreach films with great zeal? If that's the case, I do find it in very poor taste and not keeping with Marvel Comics Group quality productions.
I feel sure that Spiderman would have put up a better show. He does after all have wall crawling abilities, the ability to spin and throw webs, a handy spider sense that warns of danger and most importantly the proportionate strength of a spider. Furthermore, it could be argued that in such a battle of Super Heroes, Jesus would simply turn the other cheek, enabling Spidey to easily gain the upper hand. I'd be interested in reading different opinions on this.
Well, Jesus was also quite ready to meet any and all opposition whenever challenged publically -at least, until His appointed time came. It's a well established fact that in such cases he would resort to quoting the Proverbial Word of God in vanquishing His adversaries. If perchance He ever came across the popular Webslinger, His response might have been, "
No web-hand formed against thee shall prosper"
. Or even, upon receiving a shot of Spidey's webbing, His retort might be, "
Pull me out of the net that they have laid privily for me: for thou art my strength.
" Ps.31:4 Or even, "
Whatsoever ye bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, whatsoever ye loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven..
" (you get the picture)
Or in typical Jesus fashion, He could simply call a lightening bolt out of the atmosphere and strike Spidey down..but still something just doesn't sit right with this. Why would Spiderman and Jesus be opposed to one another in the first place? The only thing that comes to mind is the time when Peter Parker took on the other alien life form which possesed him and his superpowers. Yes, this would have probably caused a confrontation with Jesus as surely He would have sought to deliver Peter and the fight was on. Interesting too, is that Jesus' other friend, Peter, was greatly influenced by a strong demonic force threatening to overtake him as well. Back then, Jesus prayed for His follower and companion. The end result...was a victory indeed for the Kingdom of God. Not so sure how New York city would do with an evangelizing, web-slinging superhero though. I'm sure the Daily Bugle would be having a time with it and calling him the Anti-Christ of course.
Also how do you think Jesus would do against Superman, Batman and Captain America?
Hmmm...let's see! Well--don't think it hasn't been tried already. Yes, back in the day, (if you can believe this) they came out with a huge super-sized special issue of just such a battle between Spiderman and Superman..or should I say, Superman and Spiderman. It was for me, the biggest shocker to actually see them attempt such a confrontation. I remember it selling for $5. This was probably 30 or so years ago...and I bought one. I remember my shock and surprise at this special print issue. First, it was the initial shock that both DC and Marvel would be both consenting to this as most everyone knows they are two seperate companies with very different artists and writers. Anyway..long story short, it was actually a draw which was ridiculous when one thinks about it--due to the fact that A) Superman can move planets and hold up the world and B) Spiderman's strength can't even topple The Incredible Hulk's strength levels. (who happens to be under The Thing's...lol....)
Mistakes made by Creationists
Posted: 4/11/2008 4:01:01 AM
If you think a theory doesn't mean their is evidence and it's just a guess, I invite all creationists to lick my toilet bowl, or eat a good chunk of plutonium.
eeeooooew!!! That's no way to treat house guests.
Logical errors made by Atheists
Posted: 4/11/2008 3:57:20 AM
^^^^^no AIDS is just population control from a globalist agenda. God is just God.
i'm considering Mormonism
Posted: 4/8/2008 5:14:28 PM
The thing about the gold tablets looks a bit dodgy - couldn't the angel have had copies of the tablets made for Smith to keep and make available for scrutiny?
no no no...then we wouldn't of had the familiar phrase, "take two tablets and call me in the mornin'.. err.. call me Mormon."
I'd also like to know more about the special underpants that Mormons wear. I'm getting tired of traditional Y fronts and could be prepared to adopt a faith offering superior underwear, especially if supplied free of charge.
yer lucky if the Man upstairs doesn't just give ya a wedgy instead of free fruit of the loom..
Mr.T wakes kid up out of a 20 year coma!
Posted: 4/3/2008 5:12:01 AM
^^^^^^^^it didn't help him in the ring when Rocky beat his butt..
If the above events were found to be true, it is quite awesome however. I do know of his strong Christian background.
Where is the Ark of the Covenent? Will it ever be found?
Posted: 4/2/2008 3:18:05 PM
On June 20, 1987 the Turkish government announced to the world that they agree with Wyatt’s 'Noah's Ark' findings and began the construction of a special visitors centre. The Ark of the Covenant Present Location and Importance Background: Ron Wyatt is an archeologist who has been led by the Lord to discover the location of the Ark of the Covenant.
Ron Wyatt is dead..haven't you heard? He was an opportunist, a shyster and a charlatan. He was also thoroughly debunked by his own peers!! The evidence against him and his so-called archeological 'findings' is highly compelling but that's about as high as it gets. The man was a deceiver--plain and simple.
The ark of the covenant is supposedly guarded by monks in Ethiopia and is believed to be radiocative and extremely dangerous. Do a google search for it if you want to know more, just keep in mind that it's just a rumor.
~heard the same.
Why do so many believe in Jesus? As the only 'way'?
Posted: 3/31/2008 6:25:44 PM
As to getting tired, I'm tired of being told by many Christians that I, who believe in the same God as they do, will go to Hell. This after God's explicit promise to the Jewish people saying differently. These people can't even read their own Bible!
~ I too, believe in the same God as the Jewish people. But my view is that this God is represented by Jesus Christ as well.
"For unto us a Child is born, unto us
a Son is given
and the government shall be on His shoulders and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince Of Peace." Isaiah 9:6
"And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me." John 12:45
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?" John 14:9
I'm sorry, but I think it is very evil for people to go round saying, you are eternally damned if you don't believe in christ.
So it is evil for followers of Jesus to repeat His own words? Not following you there.
Verily,verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life
, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24
Why Do Atheists Get Such A Bad rap?
Posted: 3/28/2008 9:42:46 AM
I'm out of the broom closet!
~too funny! I get it.
Read my last post. I went around for much of my life believing in god. At one time I was a "cafeteria" catholic, and later on, belief in a single deity without jesus, as well as believing there was something to astrology and believing in an all powerfull creator too.
as a prior Catholic by election of birth, I resisted Catholicism for years and came to a disbelief in God. Then a supernatural event occurred in my life which spoke to my inner spirit thus awakening me to the fact that yes, He does exist, and B, He can intervene in our lives.
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 6:18:23 PM
I'm impressed Ravenstarr--you're very quick on the draw(research references) and hit the nail too!! However, considerable effort yet remains in reorganizing and reinterpreting geological field observations in terms of this new paradigm at least from the Creationist's view. As for the rest of your contributions here and others- I will get back...I did have some things to throw at 'ya but it will just take me too much time right now. thanks, and peace.
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/23/2008 5:56:15 PM
^^^^^^^^the answer for this is found in catastrophic plate tectonics.
Did Christianity Steal or Co-Opt The Pagan Easter
Posted: 3/23/2008 5:33:33 PM
^^^^^ravenstar--this is excellent reference material--but I'm afraid some may consider this 'Catholic bashing' per say? I disagree. It is merely pointing out the obvious in church histories and religious facts. And no, Mr. Woodrow was far from being a Catholic priest. He was an evangelical minister in fact. I actually had the opportunity to speak to him years ago and he had indeed been in the area near here towards Sodus or Oswego I believe, when he started out.
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/22/2008 8:29:43 AM
Literature, including the Bible, as evidence is not useful or valid. It offers no scientific validation, and actually offers only MORE contradiction to known and verifiable reality. Widespread flood stories certainly do not support a global flood. The stories differ in nature, time frame, details, etc. Some specifically speak of regional floods. Many speak of someone OTHER than Noah surviving, somewhere OTHER than Ararat. Many of these stories are in regions where there is ample evidence of local or regional prehistoric flooding. There is NO evidence of global flooding.
~the local flood theory logically implies that the Indians in North America, the natives in Africa, the Scandinavians, the Chinese, etc., were not affected by the Flood. They escaped God's judgment on sin. If so, what could Christ possibly have meant when He likened the coming judgment of all men to the judgment of 'all' men (Matthew 24:37-79) in the days of Noah? A partial judgment in Noah's day means a partial judgment to come.
Scripture does not stand if the Flood was not global.
To state that there is absolutely no evidence for a global flood seems to be the argument or crux of the matter then in all reality. Let's examine this further.
Even many Christians today claim that the Flood of Noah’s time was only a local flood. These people generally believe in a local flood because they have accepted the widely believed evolutionary history of the earth, which interprets fossil layers as the history of the sequential appearance of life over millions of years.
Scientists once understood the fossils, which are buried in water-carried sediments of mud and sand, to be mostly the result of the great Flood. Those who now accept millions of years of gradual accumulation of fossils have, in their way of thinking, explained away the evidence for the global Flood. Hence, many compromising Christians insist on a local flood.
Secularists deny the possibility of a worldwide Flood at all. If they would think from a biblical perspective, however, they would see the abundant evidence for the global Flood. As someone once quipped, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”
Those who accept the evolutionary timeframe, with its fossil accumulation, also rob the Fall of Adam of its serious consequences. They put the fossils, which testify of disease, suffering, and death, before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering into the world. In doing this, they also undermine the meaning of the death and resurrection of Christ. Such a scenario also robs all meaning from God’s description of His finished creation as “very good.”
If the Flood only affected the area of Mesopotamia, as some claim, why did Noah have to build an Ark? He could have walked to the other side of the mountains and escaped. Most importantly, if the Flood were local, people not living in the vicinity of the Flood would not have been affected by it. They would have escaped God’s judgment on sin.
A local flood covering the mountains?
A local Flood?
In addition, Jesus believed that the Flood killed every person not on the Ark. What else could Christ mean when He likened the coming world judgment to the judgment of “all” men in the days of Noah (Matthew 24:37–39)?
In 2 Peter 3, the coming judgment by fire is likened to the former judgment by water in Noah’s Flood. A partial judgment in Noah’s day, therefore, would mean a partial judgment to come.
If the Flood were only local, how could the waters rise to 20 feet (6 m) above the mountains (Genesis 7:20)? Water seeks its own level; it could not rise to cover the local mountains while leaving the rest of the world untouched.
Even what is now Mt. Everest was once covered with water and uplifted afterward. (Mount Everest is more than 5 miles (8 km) high. How, then, could the Flood have covered “all the mountains under the whole heaven?” Before the Flood, the mountains were not so high. The mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated up-thrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt. Everest are themselves composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers.) If we even out the ocean basins and flatten out the mountains, there is enough water to cover the entire earth by about 1.7 miles (2.7 km). (A.R. Wallace, Man’s Place in the Universe, McClure, Phillips & Co, New York, 1903, 225–226; www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S728-3.htm) Also important to note is that, with the leveling out of the oceans and mountains, the Ark would not have been riding at the height of the current Mt. Everest, thus no need for such things as oxygen masks either.
There’s more. If the Flood were a local flood, God would have repeatedly broken His promise never to send such a flood again. God put a rainbow in the sky as a covenant between God and man and the animals that He would never repeat such an event. There have been huge local floods in recent times (e.g., in Bangladesh); but never has there been another global Flood that killed all life on the land.
Where Is the Evidence in the Earth for Noah’s Flood?
Evidence of Noah’s Flood can be seen all over the earth, from seabeds to mountaintops.
Whether you travel by car, train, or plane, the physical features of the earth’s terrain clearly indicate a catastrophic past, from canyons and craters to coal beds and caverns. Some layers of strata extend across continents, revealing the effects of a huge catastrophe.
The earth’s crust has massive amounts of layered sedimentary rock, sometimes miles (kilometers) deep! These layers of sand, soil, and material—mostly laid down by water—were once soft like mud, but they are now hard stone. Encased in these sedimentary layers are billions of dead things (fossils of plants and animals) buried very quickly.
The evidence all over the earth is staring everyone in the face.
Now, I call your attention to the testimony of a man who has studied fossils for well over 45 years. In fact, he has come to be jokingly referred to as 'Mr. Fossil.' His name is Dr. Arlton C. Murray. As fate would have it, he was bit by the 'fossil bug' while finding a good specimen of the extinct long-beaked porpoise (Eurhinodelphis bossi)on the cliffs of Chesapeake Bay, Maryland during boy scout camp. He was trained and started as an evolutionist and worked as a field collector and preparator of vertebrate fossils for many years at the Smithsonian Institution.
by Robert Doolan
Dr. Arlton C. Murray is known for digging up fossils and burying evolution.
For most of his life he has worked at excavating fossils and preparing them for professional display. He has worked for the Smithsonian Institution and the National Park Service in Washington, DC, and for the William Penn Museum in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. More recently he excavated a dinosaur for Liberty University’s museum in Lynchburg, Virginia. He has built up such a knowledge about fossils, and enjoys his work with them so much, that when he lectures or talks on this subject he is usually introduced as ‘Mr Fossil’.
Dr. Murray worked for 27 years with the Smithsonian Institution as a field collector and preparator of vertebrate fossils. He proudly admits to being a creationist, and even has the words ‘creation scientist’ printed on his business cards. He was once an atheist and evolutionist, but now totally rejects those former beliefs.
‘The true explanation of the fossil record is very clear’, he says. ‘The only reasonable explanation for the fossil record, and the sedimentary formations in which they are found, is the great cataclysm of the Noachic Deluge.’
During Dr. Murray’s early years at the Smithsonian he was heavily indoctrinated in evolution. ‘Not being a Christian, my indoctrination in evolutionistic geology just seemed to come naturally, and like so many do, I assumed it was all true.’ He says he fell deeply into the rut of evolutionary belief and the study of ‘the age of rocks’.
Found the right rock
At the insistence of some friends, he attended some revival meetings in a little church in Maryland. He sees this as his graduation day from death to life. ‘God reached down and lifted me from the miry clay of evolution to the glorious realm of creation science’, he says. ‘I now had met the “Rock of Ages”—and that Rock is Jesus Christ. He gave me my BA degree—Born Again.’
From that time he started to see the errors and problems with the theory of evolution that he hadn’t noticed before.
For example, he says, ‘Evolutionists assume that in each sedimentary stratum certain fossils appear to be distinctively abundant. To them, these fossils are labelled as index fossils. So they come to the conclusion that the fossils are the means of dating the rocks. But how do they know that index fossils only lived in certain ages and not in others?’ He says the answer is simply the assumption that evolution is true!
Dr. Murray also sees a major obstacle for evolutionists in the fact that the fossil record contains no indication that one type of creature has turned into a completely different type. ‘There is not a single intermediate fossil ever found’, he says. ‘All fossils that are found clearly show that each has developed “after its kind”, as the Bible tells us.’
One of Dr. Murray’s major fossil recoveries was Pennsylvania’s most complete skeleton of a mastodon—an extinct mammal something like an elephant. On a hot Friday in July of 1968, a mining company accidentally unearthed three bone fragments at Marshalls Creek in the Pocono area of Pennsylvania.
‘I was employed by the William Penn Museum at this time, in the departments of archaeology and palaeontology. So I had the honour of going to see the three bone fragments.’
Dr. Murray identified them as belonging to the left rear part of a mastodon skull. Within weeks, he was leading a crew from the museum to Marshalls Creek to excavate the rest of the skeleton. ‘It turned out to be about a 98 per cent complete mastodon skeleton, and represents the most complete skeletal recovery in the State of Pennsylvania.’
And there was more. While preparing the bones for display back at the museum, Dr. Murray found an unusual characteristic of the skeleton. ‘I discovered that this mastodon had suffered a severe case of osteomyelitis, a serious bone infection that is rather rare in vertebrate fossils.’ The mastodon soon became a highly prized exhibit in the William Penn Museum in Pennsylvania.
How his interest began
Dr. Murray says that some of the best times of his life have been out on the fossil fields. His fossil-finding goes back to when he was at a boy scout camp at Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. He was walking along the beach when he found a fairly good specimen of an extinct long-beaked porpoise (Eurhinodelphis bossi) in the cliffs. A few days later his fossil was at the Smithsonian. He was shown around the Smithsonian museum, and his fossil porpoise was given a lot of attention.
‘This is where the “fossil bug” bit me real hard’, he says. ‘The late Dr. Charles W. Gilmore graciously took me under his wing and eventually arranged for me to be employed as a preparator and field collector.’
He says there are many exciting aspects to the science of vertebrate palaeontology. ‘I find that the extensive fossil beds contain many remains of plants and animals in a perfect state of preservation, thus showing they were killed and buried suddenly by a great deluge.’
He believes an excellent example of this is in the millions of fossil fish that can be found. ‘Fossil fish are sometimes found in a very distorted position, showing instant burial and suffocation. It is exciting to uncover these relics of the Flood of Noah’s day and hold in my hand some of the remains of the flora and fauna of that time.’
Creationist dinosaur recovery
One recent fossil dig he took part in was the excavation of a dinosaur in Colorado for Liberty University’s Creation Museum in Virginia. This dinosaur was the first of its kind in any creationist museum.
‘What a thrill it is for me to be out on an expedition for fossils and to see a specimen from the days of the Flood burst out of an obscure antiquity into a very lively present time.’
With more than 45 years’ experience with fossils, Dr. Murray has long been in demand as a lecturer at Christian schools, churches, and other groups. He speaks about vertebrate fossils and their relationship to creation and Noah’s Flood, and about other evidences for creation. Some of his favourite other topics are the archer-fish, which catches insects by stunning them with a jet of water forced through a hole in its mouth, and the design features of spiders.
What about those who say God could have used evolution as His method of creation?
‘There is just no way that the theory of evolution can be reconciled with the truth of creation as recorded in the Bible. And as a former adherent to this false theory of evolution, I can assure anyone that to discount the God of creation and His wonderful works is sheer folly.’
Dr. Murray delights in the fact that his early experiences are now used to God’s honour and glory. ‘The best day in my life was my graduation day from death unto life and from “the age of rocks” to “the Rock of Ages” by the power of the God of creation.’
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/20/2008 5:42:38 PM
Hi guys, hope you don't mind if I join in for a sec. One scenario I've always thought would make it 'do-able' would have been hibernation. Many, maybe most, of the animals might have been sleeping. If the flood happened and if the ark was built, and I'm not sayin' yea, or nay - just speculatin'. Food consumption and elimination would have been greatly lessened if they (the animals) were sleeping. Just my 2 cents.
Quite true zoretta...and I have seen this hypothesis. Just as God brought the animals to Noah by some form of supernatural means, He surely also prepared them for this amazing event. Creation scientists suggest that God gave the animals the ability to hibernate, as we see in many species today. Most animals react to natural disasters in ways that were designed to help them survive. It’s very possible many animals did hibernate, perhaps even supernaturally intensified by God.
Whether it was supernatural or simply a normal response to the darkness and confinement of a rocking ship, the fact that God told Noah to build rooms (“qen”—literally in Hebrew “nests”) in Genesis 6:14 implies that the animals were subdued or nesting. God also told Noah to take food for them (Genesis 6:21), which tells us that they were not in a year-long coma either.
Looking at that Korean study I have to ask myself if while they were wondering if the design was plausible did they even begin to ask themselves anything about the actual geography and history of the region?
weak retort--surely you can do better than that.
To engage in a make-work project of that magnitude and to command the level of resources of that amount in that short order as well as the amount of labour required to build such a vessel, he would have to be. Never mind the fact that he would require a time machine to obtain the engineering and shipbuilding know-how from centuries in the future...at least the Roman era if not later and before you ask, yes I have done some limited reading on the subject, but if you don't believe me I think any primer on the subject of shipbuilding and the vast amount of labour and materials required for such an undertaking would disabuse you (unless you are hopelessly deluded ) of this notion.
Why not just say it was all a miracle and be done with it, hmm?
because it doesn't require 100% 'miracles' in order to be altogether true.
The Bible does not tell us that Noah and his sons built the Ark by themselves. Noah could have hired skilled laborers or had relatives, such as Methuselah and Lamech, help build the vessel. However, nothing indicates that they could not—or that they did not—build the Ark themselves in the time allotted. The physical strength and mental processes of men in Noah’s day was at least as great (quite likely, even superior) to our own.2 They certainly would have had efficient means for harvesting and cutting timber, as well as for shaping, transporting, and erecting the massive beams and boards required.
If one or two men today can erect a large house in just 12 weeks, how much more could three or four men do in a few years? Adam’s descendants were making complex musical instruments, forging metal, and building cities—their tools, machines, and techniques were not primitive.
History has shown that technology can be lost. In Egypt, China, and the Americas the earlier dynasties built more impressive buildings or had finer art or better science. Many so-called modern inventions turn out to be re-inventions, like concrete, which was used by the Romans.
Even accounting for the possible loss of technology due to the Flood, early post-Flood civilizations display all the engineering know-how necessary for a project like Noah’s Ark. People sawing and drilling wood in Noah’s day, only a few centuries before the Egyptians were sawing and drilling granite, is very reasonable! The idea that more primitive civilizations are further back in time is an evolutionary concept.
For the evidence, see Dr. Donald Chittick, The Puzzle of Ancient Man, Newberg, Oregon, 1998. This book details evidence of man’s intelligence in early post-Flood civilizations.
Except for the small problem that there is absolutely no way to prove this historically while in fact the archaeological record supports the opposite and makes a lie of the above claim.
A very common view is that the biblical story of Noah’s Flood was not historical at all, and was borrowed from flood legends in Mesopotamia. But the evidence fails to bear this out and proves that the Epic of Gilgamesh is a distortion and found blatantly so with comparative analysis:-
Comparison of Genesis and Gilgamesh
Extent of flood Global /Global
Cause Man’s wickedness /Man’s sins
Intended for whom? All mankind /One city & all mankind
Sender Yahweh /Assembly of “gods”
Name of hero Noah /Utnapishtim
Hero’s character Righteous /Righteous
Means of announcement Direct from God /In a dream
Ordered to build boat? Yes /Yes
Did hero complain? No /Yes
Height of boat Three stories /Seven stories
Compartments inside? Many /Many
Doors One /One
Windows At least one /At least one
Outside coating Pitch /Pitch
Shape of boat Oblong box /Cube
Human passengers Family members only /Family & few others
Other passengers All kinds of land animals (vertebrates) /All kinds of land animals
Means of flood Underground water & heavy rain /Heavy rain
Duration of flood Long (40 days & nights plus) /Short (6 days & nights)
Test to find land Release of birds/ Release of birds
Types of birds Raven & three doves /Dove, swallow, raven
Ark landing spot Mountains—of Ararat /Mountains—Mt Nisir
Sacrificed after flood? Yes, by Noah /Yes, by Utnapishtim
Blessed after flood? Yes /Yes
Which came first?
We can see from the table that there are many similarities, which point to a common source. But there are also significant differences. Even the order of sending out birds is logical in Noah’s account. He realized that the non-return of a carrion feeder like a raven proved nothing, while Utnapishtim sent the raven out last. But Noah realized that a dove was more logical—when the dove returned with a freshly picked olive branch, Noah knew the water had abated. And its non-return a week later showed that the dove found a good place to settle.
Genesis is older
It makes more sense that Genesis was the original and the pagan myths arose as distortions of that original account. While Moses lived long after the event, he probably acted as the editor of far older sources.9 For example, Genesis 10:19 gives matter-of-fact directions, ‘as you go toward Sodom and Gomorrah and Admah and Zeboiim’. These were the cities of the plain God destroyed for their extreme wickedness 500 years before Moses. Yet Genesis gives directions at a time when they were well-known landmarks, not buried under the Dead Sea.
It is common to make legends out of historical events, but not history from legends. The liberals also commonly assert that monotheism is a late evolutionary religious development. The Bible teaches that mankind was originally monotheistic. Archaeological evidence suggests the same, indicating that only later did mankind degenerate into idolatrous pantheism.(Schmidt, W., The Origin and Growth of Religion, Cooper Square, New York, 1971.)
For instance, in Genesis, God’s judgment is just, he is patient with mankind for 120 years (Genesis 6:3), shows mercy to Noah, and is sovereign. Conversely, the gods in the Gilgamesh Epic are capricious and squabbling, cower at the Flood and are famished without humans to feed them sacrifices. That is, the human writers of the Gilgamesh Epic rewrote the true account, and made their gods in their own image.
The whole Gilgamesh-derivation theory is based on the discredited Documentary Hypothesis.(Grigg, R., Did Moses really write Genesis?)
This assumes that the Pentateuch was compiled by priests during the Babylonian Exile in the 6th century BC. But the internal evidence shows no sign of this, and every sign of being written for people who had just come out of Egypt. The Eurocentric inventors of the Documentary Hypothesis, such as Julius Wellhausen, thought that writing hadn’t been invented by Moses’ time. But many archaeological discoveries of ancient writing show that this is ludicrous.
All people groups remember a global Flood
Liberals often claim that the Gilgamesh epic was embellished from a severe river flood, i.e. a local flood. This might work if there were similar flood legends only around the ancient near east. But there are thousands of such flood legends all around the world—see the chart below for some examples.
Flood Traditions chart
Even the Australian Aborigines have legends of a massive flood, as do people living in the deep jungles near the Amazon River in South America. Dr Alexandra Aikhenvald, a world expert on the languages of that region, said:
‘… without their language and its structure, people are rootless. In recording it you are also getting down the stories and folklore. If those are lost a huge part of a people’s history goes. These stories often have a common root that speaks of a real event, not just a myth. For example, every Amazonian society ever studied has a legend about a great flood.’ (Barnett, A., For want of a word, New Scientist 181(2432):44–47, 31 January 2004.)
This makes perfect sense if there were a real global Flood as Genesis teaches, and all people groups came from survivors who kept memories of this cataclysm.
Ark tilt diagram
Diagram showing how resistant the Ark was to capsizing. After Henry Morris, The Biblical basis for modern science.
Click on picture for high resolution (126 kb).
The Ark was built to be tremendously stable. God told Noah to make it 300x50x30 cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140x23x13.5 metres or 459x75x44 feet, so its volume was 43,500 m3 (cubic metres) or 1.54 million cubic feet. This is just right to keep the boat from capsizing and to smooth the ride. There are three main types of rotation in ships (and planes), about three perpendicular axes:
1) Yawing, rotation about a vertical axis, i.e. the bow and stern move alternately left to right.
2) Pitching, rotation about a lateral axis, an imaginary line left to right, i.e. the bow and stern move alternately up and down.
3) Rolling (or heeling), rotating about the longitudinal axis, an imaginary line from bow to stern, tending to tip the boat on its side.
Yawing is not dangerous, in that it won’t capsize a boat, but it would make the ride uncomfortable. Pitching is also an unlikely way to capsize a boat. In any case, the enormous length of the boat would make it align parallel to the wave direction, so these disturbances would be minimal.
real Ark scale
Rolling is by far the greatest danger, and the Ark solves that by being much wider than it is high. It would be almost impossible to tip over—even if the Ark were somehow tipped over 60°, it could still right itself, as shown in the diagram (above).
But it would be almost impossible to tip the Ark over even a fraction of this. David Collins, who worked as a naval architect, showed that even a 210-knot wind (three times hurricane force) could not overcome the Ark’s righting moment, which would have stopped the Ark tilting much beyond 3°.
Furthermore, Korean naval architects have confirmed that a barge with the Ark’s dimensions would have optimal stability. They concluded that if the wood were only 30 cm thick, it could have navigated sea conditions with waves higher than 30 m.14 Compare this with a tsunami (‘tidal wave’), which is typically only about 10 m high. Note also that there is even less danger from tsunamis, because they are dangerous only near the shore―out at sea, they are hardly noticeable.
Dr Werner Gitt showed that the Ark had ideal dimensions to optimize both stability and economy of material—
Contrast that with Utnapishtim’s ark—this was a huge cube! It is harder to think of a more ridiculous design for a ship—it would roll over in all directions at even the slightest disturbance. However, the story is easy to explain if they distorted Genesis, and found that one dimension is easier to remember than three, ‘its dimensions must measure equal to each other’, and it seems a much nicer shape. The pagan human authors didn’t realize why the real Ark’s dimensions had to be what they were. But the reverse is inconceivable: that Jewish scribes, hardly known for naval architectural skills, took the mythical cubic Ark and turned it into the most stable wooden vessel possible!
Genesis is the original.
The Gilgamesh Epic has close parallels with the account of Noah’s Flood. Its close similarities are due to its closeness to the real event. However, there are major differences as well.
Everything in the Epic, from the gross polytheism to the absurd cubical ark, as well as the worldwide flood legends, shows that the Genesis account is the original, while the Gilgamesh Epic is a distortion.
At this point you're just beating a dead horse.
if I was- its name would probably be 'Seattle Slew.'
Because frankly there is no plausible explanation for any of it that is not utter nonsense. charlesedm already did an excellent job of pointing out the fallacies at hand in this utter rubbish..
**sigh**still 'mything the boat' I see. Well, I've had enough of the silly argumentations.
nonsense you say? others say 'non-science'...yet...people ignore the physical as well as testimonial evidences for such a thing to be true or not. Let's move on to the most credible of
evidences: (I warn you though--this is not for the 'weak of stomach' Atheists...proceed with caution.)
how's that song go? "Oh shout it on the mountain...over the river and thru the woods......ohhhhh go shout it on the mountains........over the river and...."
The real Noah's Ark.
Posted: 3/19/2008 5:09:09 PM
Maybe you should lay off the biceps for for a while and exercise your LOGIC MUSCLE, yours seems a bit whithered and atrophied. Let me get this right.... Someone looking specifically for the arc find a piece of petrified wood and claims it's from the exact 4,000 year old boat?
Here's a couple of problems:
1. Wood takes WAY more than 4,000 years to "petrify".
2. A 550 foot WOODEN boat would collapse under it's own weight.
3. The Middle East has NEVER been known the place of Forests... where do you suggest Noah found the millions of board feet of lumber for this MASSIVE boat?
4. 8 people could not feed thousands of animals (and muck out their stalls).
5. Carnivorous animals such as lions will get sick and die if they don't eat lots of MEAT.
6. One happy incestuous family CANNOT repopulate the world on two accounts:
a-- You can't reproduce Billions of people in 4,000 years from a single source
b-- There's more than a little problem with IN BREEDING after one generation... The 'family' would be freakish after 2 generations and dead by the 5th... let alone 1,000 generations. USE SOME LOGIC HERE for godsake.
Don't just start screaming about "hardcore" atheists because people are underwhelmed by your "archaeological discovery of the Millennium (even for a "millennium" that is only 8 years old).
James, Port Orchard, Washington, USA, Earth
hey seattlerain-- perhaps you have water on the brain? its a good thing you tell us what planet you're from cuz I woulda thought you're talkin from Ur-anus. I have better things to do than sit and argue with Jesus Mythologists the likes of you and others. But since you took the time to talk from you ass--the least I can do is reply:
1) WRONG on the first one!! There are many modern examples showing the quick petrification of wood found in a natural environment as well as artificial processes simulating such a thing!!
Rapid natural petrification
The chemical components used to artificially petrify wood can be found in natural settings around volcanoes and within sedimentary strata. Is it possible then that natural petrification can occur rapidly by these processes? Indeed! Sigleo4 reported silica deposition rates into blocks of wood in alkaline springs at Yellowstone National Park (USA) of between 0.1 and 4.0 mm/yr.
From Australia come some startling reports. Writing in The Australian Lapidary Magazine, Pigott5 recounts his experiences in southwestern Queensland:
'. . . from Mrs McMurray [of Blackall], I heard a story that rocked me and seemed to explode many ideas about the age of petrified wood. Mrs McMurray has a piece of wood turned to stone which has clear axe marks on it. She says the tree this piece came from grew on a farm her father had at Euthella, out of Roma, and was chopped down by him about 70 years ago. It was partly buried until it was dug up again, petrified. Mac McMurray capped this story by saying a townsman had a piece of petrified fence post with the drilled holes for wire with a piece of the wire attached.
'Petrified wood thousands of years old? I wonder is it so?'
Several months later Pearce6 added further to these amazing stories of woods rapidly petrified in the ground of 'outback' Queensland:
'. . . Piggott writes of petrified wood showing axe marks and also of a petrified fence post.
'This sort of thing is, of course, quite common. The Hughenden district, N. Q. [North Queensland], has . . . Parkensonia trees washed over near a station [ranch] homestead and covered with silt by a flood in 1918 [which] had the silt washed off by a flood in 1950. Portions of the trunk had turned to stone of an attractive colour. However, much of the trunks and all the limbs had totally disappeared.
'On Zara Station [Ranch], 30 miles [about 48 kilometres] from Hughenden, I was renewing a fence. Where it was dipped into a hollow the bottom of the old posts had gone through black soil into shale. The Gidgee wood was still perfect in the black soil. It then cut off as straight as if sawn, and the few inches of post in the shale was pure stone. Every axe mark was perfect and the colour still the same as the day the post was cut . . . .
'I understand that down in the sandhill country below Boulia [south-western Queensland], where fences are often completely covered by shifting sand, it's a common thing for the sand to shift off after a number of years, leaving stone posts standing erect.'
From the other side of the world comes a report of the chapel of Santa Maria of Health (Santa Maria de Salute), built in 1630 in Venice, Italy, to celebrate the end of The Plague. Because Venice is built on watersaturated clay and sand, the chapel was constructed on 180,000 wooden pilings to reinforce the foundations. Even though the chapel is a massive stone block structure, it has remained firm since its construction. How have the wooden pilings lasted over 360 years? They have petrified! The chapel now rests on 'stone' pilings!7
Of course, none of these reports should come as a surprise, since the processes of petrification of wood have been known for years, plus the fact that the process can occur, and has occurred, rapidly. For example Scurfield and Segnit8 had reported that the petrification of wood can be considered to take place in five stages:
1. Entry of silica in solution or as a colloid into the wood.
2. Penetration of silica into the cell walls of the wood's structure.
3. Progressive dissolving of the cell walls which are at the same time replaced by silica so that the wood's dimensional stability is maintained.
4. Silica deposition within the voids within the cellular wall framework structure.
5. Final hardening (lithification) by Drying out.
Furthermore Oehler9 had previously shown that the silica minerals quartz and chalcedony critically important in the petrification of wood, can be made, rapidly in the laboratory from silica gel. At 300°C (572°F) and 3 kilobars (about 3,000 atmospheres) pressure only 25 hours was required to crystallize quartz, whereas at only 165°C (329°F) and 3 kilobars pressure the same degree of crystallization occurred in 170 hours (about seven days).
Similarly, Drum10 had partially silicified small branches by placing them in concentrated solutions of sodium metasilicate for up to 24 hours, while Leo and Barghoorn11 had immersed fresh wood alternately in water and saturated ethyl silicate solutions until the open spaces in the wood were filled with mineral material, all within several months to a year. Likewise, as early as 1950 Merrill and Spencer12 had shown that the sorption of silica by wood fibres from solutions of sodium metasilicate, sodium silicate and activated silica sols (a homogeneous suspension in water) at only 25°C (77°F) was as much as 12.5 moles of silica per gram within 24 hours--the equivalent of partial silicification/petrification. As Sigleo concluded,
'These observations indicate that silica nucleation and deposition can occur directly and rapidly on exposed cellulose [wood] surfaces.'13
The evidence, both from scientists' laboratories and God's natural laboratory, shows that under the right chemical conditions wood can be rapidly petrified by silicification, even at normal temperatures and pressures. The process of petrification of wood is now so well known and understood that scientists can rapidly make petrified wood in their laboratories at will.
Unfortunately, most people still think, and are led to believe, that fossilized wood buried in rock strata must have taken thousands, if not millions, of years to petrify. Clearly, such thinking is erroneous, since it has been repeatedly demonstrated that petrification of wood can, and does, occur rapidly. Thus the timeframe for the formation of the petrified wood within the geological record is totally compatible with the biblical time-scale of a recent creation and a subsequent devastating global Flood.
1. Phil McCafferty, 'Instant petrified wood?', Popular Science, October 1992, pp. 56-57.
2. Hamilton Hicks, 'Mineralized sodium silicate solutions for artificial petrification of wood', United States Patent Number 4,612,050, September 16,1986, pp. 1-3. As cited by: Steven Austin, CatastroRef--'Catastrophe Reference Database: Catastrophes in Earth History, Geologic Evidence, Speculation and Theory', Institute for Creation Research, San Diego. Entry no. 267.
3. Hicks, Ref 2.
4. A.C. Sigleo, 'Organic geochemistry of silicified wood, Petrified Forest National Park, Arizona', Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 42, 1978, pp. 1397-1405.
5. Roy Piggott, The Australian Lapidary Magazine, January 1970, p. 9.
6. R.C. Pearce, 'Petnfied wood', The Australian Lapidary Magazine, June 1970, p. 33.
7. Segment on 'Burke's Backyard', Channel 9 TV, Sydney, June 1995.
8. G. Scurfield and E.R. Segnit, 'Petnfication of wood by silica minerals', Sedimentary Geology, Vol. 39, 1984, pp. 149- 167.
9. John H. Oehler, 'Hydrothermal crystallization of silica gel', Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 87, August 1976, pp. 1143-1152.
10. R.W Drum, 'Silicification of Betula woody tissue in vitro', Science, Vol. 161, 1968, pp 175-176.
11. R.E Leo, and E.S. Barghoorn, 'Silicification of wood', Harvard University Botanical Museum Leaflets, No. 25, 1976, pp. 1-47.
12. R.C. Mernll and R.W. Spencer, 'Sorption of sodium silicates and silicate sols by cellulose fibers', Industrial Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 42, 1950, pp. 744-747.
13. Sigleo, Ref 4, p. 1404.
2) really now...have you studied the model or history for such vessels? or are you once again just writing to justify your contempt for Bible truths? Noah's ark was indeed a huge vessel. . Not until the late 1800s was a ship built that exceeded the capacity of Noah’s Ark.
The dimensions of the Ark are convincing for two reasons: the proportions are like that of a modern cargo ship, and it is about as large as a wooden ship can be built. The cubit gives us a good indication of size.1 With the cubit’s measurement, we know that the Ark must have been at least 450 feet (137 m) long, 75 feet (23 m) wide, and 45 feet (14 m) high.
In the Western world, wooden sailing ships never got much longer than about 330 feet (100 m), yet the ancient Greeks built vessels at least this size 2,000 years earlier. China built huge wooden ships in the 1400s that may have been as large as the Ark.
The biblical Ark is one of the largest wooden ships of all time—a mid-sized cargo ship by today’s standards.
The description of the Ark is very brief—Genesis 6:14–16. Those three verses contain critical information including overall dimensions, but Noah was almost certainly given more detail than this. Other divinely specified constructions in the Bible are meticulously detailed, like the descriptions of Moses’ Tabernacle or the temple in Ezekiel’s vision.
The Bible does not say the Ark was a rectangular box. In fact, Scripture gives no clue about the shape of Noah’s Ark other than the proportions—length, width, and depth. Ships have long been described like this without ever implying a block-shaped hull.
Moses used the obscure term tebah, a word that is only used again for the basket that carried baby Moses (Exodus 2:3). One was a huge wooden ship and the other a tiny wicker basket. Both float, both rescue life, and both are covered. But the similarity ends there. We can be quite sure that the baby basket did not have the same proportions as the Ark, and Egyptian baskets of the time were typically rounded. Perhaps tebah means “lifeboat.”
For many years biblical creationists have simply depicted the Ark as a rectangular box. This shape helped illustrate its size while avoiding the distractions of hull curvature. It also made it easy to compare volume. By using a short cubit and the maximum number of animal “kinds,” creationists, as we’ve seen, have demonstrated how easily the Ark could fit the payload.7 At the time, space was the main issue; other factors were secondary.
However, the next phase of research investigated sea-keeping (behavior and comfort at sea), hull strength, and stability. This began with a Korean study performed at the world-class ship research center (KRISO) in 1992.8 The team of nine KRISO researchers was led by Dr. Hong, who is now director-general of the research center.
The study confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 98 feet (30 m), and that the proportions of the biblical Ark are near optimal—an interesting admission from Dr. Hong, who believes evolutionary ideas, openly claiming “life came from the sea.”9 The study combined analysis, model wave testing, and ship standards, yet the concept was simple: compare the biblical Ark with 12 other vessels of the same volume but modified in length, width, or depth. Three qualities were measured—stability, hull strength, and comfort.
Ship Qualities Measured in the 1992 Korean Study
( Hong, et al., Safety Investigation of Noah’s Ark in a seaway, TJ 8(1):26–36, April 1994.)
While Noah’s Ark was an average performer in each quality, it was among the best designs overall. In other words, the proportions show a careful design balance that is easily lost when proportions are modified the wrong way.
It is no surprise that modern ships have similar proportions—those proportions work.
Interesting to note is the fact that this study makes nonsense of the claim that Genesis was written only a few centuries before Christ and was based on flood legends such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Babylonian ark is a cube shape, something so far from reality that even the shortest hull in the Korean study was not even close. But we would expect mistakes from other flood accounts, like that of Gilgamesh, as the account of Noah would have been distorted as it was passed down through different cultures.
Yet one mystery remained. The Korean study did not hide the fact that some shorter hulls slightly outperformed the biblical Noah’s Ark. Further work by Tim Lovett, one author of this chapter, and two naval architects, Jim King and Dr. Allen Magnuson, focused attention on the issue of broaching— being turned sideways by the waves.
How do we know what the waves were like? If there were no waves at all, stability, comfort, or strength would be unimportant, and the proportions would not matter. A shorter hull would then be a more efficient volume, taking less wood and less work. However, we can take clues from the proportions of the Ark itself. The Korean study had assumed waves came from every direction, giving shorter hulls an advantage. But real ocean waves usually have a dominant direction due to the wind, favoring a short, wide hull even more.
Another type of wave may also have affected the Ark during the Flood—tsunamis. Earthquakes can create tsunamis that devastate coastlines. However, when a tsunami travels in deep water it is imperceptible to a ship. During the Flood, the water would have been very deep—there is enough water in today’s oceans to cover the earth to a depth of about 1.7 miles (2.7 km). The Bible states that the Ark rose “high above the earth” (Genesis 7:17). Launched from high ground by the rising floodwaters, the Ark would have avoided the initial devastation of coastlines and low-lying areas, and remained safe from tsunamis throughout the voyage.
After several months at sea, God sent a wind (Genesis 8:1), which could have produced very large waves since these waves can be produced by a strong, steady wind. Open-water testing confirms that any drifting vessel will naturally turn side-on to the waves (broach). With waves approaching the side of the vessel (beam sea), a long vessel like the Ark would be trapped in an uncomfortable situation; in heavy weather it could become dangerous. This could be overcome, however, by the vessel catching the wind (Genesis 8:1) at the bow and catching the water at the stern—aligning itself like a wind vane. These features appear to have inspired a number of ancient ship designs. Once the Ark points into the waves, the long, ship-like proportions create a more comfortable and controlled voyage. Traveling slowly with the wind, it had no need for speed, but the Bible does say the Ark moved about on the surface of the waters (Genesis 7:18).
Compared to a ship-like bow and stern, blunt ends are not as strong, have edges that are vulnerable to damage during launch and beaching, and give a rougher ride. Since the Bible gives proportions like that of a true ship, it makes sense that it should look and act ship-like. The below design is an attempt to flesh out the biblical outline using real-life experiments and archeological evidence of ancient ships.
While Scripture does not point out a wind-catching feature at the bow, the abbreviated account we are given in Genesis makes no mention of drinking water, the number of animals, or the way they got out of the Ark either.
Nothing in this newly depicted Ark contradicts Scripture; in fact, it shows how accurate Scripture is!
1. Something to catch the wind
Wind-driven waves would cause a drifting vessel to turn dangerously side-on to the weather. However, such waves could be safely navigated by making the Ark steer itself with a wind-catching obstruction on the bow. To be effective, this obstruction must be large enough to overcome the turning effect of the waves. While many designs could work, the possibility reflects the high stems which were a hallmark of ancient ships.
3) I'll leave this for my fellow scribes to decipher.......montanan should do quite nicely.
According to Scripture, Noah’s Ark was a safe haven for representatives of all the kinds of air-breathing land animals that God created. While it is possible that God made miraculous provisions for the daily care of these animals, it is not necessary—or required by Scripture—to appeal to miracles. Exploring natural solutions for day-to-day operations does not discount God’s role: the biblical account hints at plenty of miracles as written, such as God bringing the animals to the Ark (Genesis 6:20; 7:9, 15). It turns out that a study of existing, low-tech animal care methods answers trivial objections to the Ark. In fact, many solutions to seemingly insurmountable problems are rather straightforward.
How Did Noah Fit All the Animals on the Ark?
According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied), assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) were small (the largest only a few hundred pounds of body weight). What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants and rhinos. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area because it is most likely that these animals were young, but not newborns. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
What Did the Dinosaurs Eat?
Dinosaurs could have eaten basically the same foods as the other animals. The large sauropods could have eaten compressed hay, other dried plant material, seeds and grains, and the like. Carnivorous dinosaurs—if any were meat-eaters before the Flood—could have eaten dried meat, reconstituted dried meat, or slaughtered animals. Giant tortoises would have been ideal to use as food in this regard. They were large and needed little food to be maintained themselves. There are also exotic sources of meat, such as fish that wrap themselves in dry cocoons.
How Were the Animals Cared For?
We must distinguish between the long-term care required for animals kept in zoos and the temporary, emergency care required on the Ark. The animals’ comfort and healthy appearance were not essential for emergency survival during one stressful year, where survival was the primary goal.
Proposed manure removing plan for the Ark
Animal enclosures with sloped, self-cleaning floors, emptying into a manure gutter or pit.
Studies of nonmechanized animal care indicate that eight people could have fed and watered 16,000 creatures. The key is to avoid unnecessary walking around. As the old adage says, “Don’t work harder, work smarter.”
Therefore, Noah probably stored the food and water near each animal. Even better, drinking water could have been piped into troughs, just as the Chinese have used bamboo pipes for this purpose for thousands of years. The use of some sort of self-feeders, as is commonly done for birds, would have been relatively easy and probably essential. Animals that required special care or diets were uncommon and should not have needed an inordinate amount of time from the handlers. Even animals with the most specialized diets in nature could have been switched to readily sustainable substitute diets. Of course, this assumes that animals with specialized diets today were likewise specialized at the time of the Flood.
6-a,b) already covered that. refer to message #156
BONUS: "..these are the things you find--when you think OUTSIDE the 'box.' "
Scientific Study Endorses Seaworthiness of Ark
The proportions of the Ark were found to carefully balance the conflicting demands of stability, comfort, and strength.
Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design. In fact, the Ark’s careful balance is easily lost if the proportions are modified, rendering the vessel either unstable, prone to fracture, or dangerously uncomfortable.
The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship.
The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.
Dr. Seon Won HongDr. Seon Won Hong was principal research scientist when he headed up the Noah’s Ark investigation. In May 2005 Dr. Hong was appointed director general of MOERI (formerly KRISO). Dr. Hong earned a B.S. degree in naval architecture from Seoul National University and a Ph.D. degree in applied mechanics from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
All this makes nonsense of the claim that Genesis was written only a few centuries before Christ, as a mere retelling of earlier Babylonian flood legends such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. The Epic of Gilgamesh story describes a cube-shaped ark, which would have given a dangerously rough ride. This is neither accurate nor scientific. Noah’s Ark is the original, while the Gilgamesh Epic is a later distortion.
It seems many of you are still 'mything the boat' so to speak.
This in itself, was prophesied by Peter in:
"For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overthrown with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men."
Why Doesn't God Speak Anymore?
Posted: 3/14/2008 4:46:35 PM
He does...and sometimes in the most subtle of ways. Like thru actions of others...or words that seem to come from God to you but thru others speaking. Of course, I believe He can speak both audibly, and internally, to your spirit as well.
So what is a true christian
Posted: 3/14/2008 4:20:15 PM
i believe its about your faith...
you don't need to believe in the bible
, church or have to join church groups....its about how strong your faith is and if nothing with stop you from believing then that means your a true christian.....doesn't matter what religion you f...
this could indeed get problematic and I'll explain why--
two major issues:
1) The Scriptures are considered by many (including the listed Apostles) as being inspired by God. Some can therefore, take a verse as the following to be quite literal:
cometh by hearing and hearing by the
word of God.
" So to summarize, one can very well receive their faith directly from the Scriptures. Another way--as evidenced by Scripture as well, is thru direct, divine revelation from God Himself. From what we see in the New Testament, this was the case with Peter, Paul and others.
2) Christ's own teachings according to the revealed word, and contained in the New Testament, stipulate a strong inference to salvation and
of the Bible's contents. I won't elaborate but if someone needs - I can.
I submit that attempting to define what a true Christian is, is about as meaningful as attempting to decide how many angels can do a bossa nova on the head of a pin...and frankly those who think they can and attempt to use the Bible as their proof text need a lesson in both common reasoning, theological history and humility.
Why should it be? If the Bible we have today is remarkably true to the original writings, we then have a pretty good barometer in which to study the words, doctrines, and faith of the original starters of the movement. There really then should be no great difficulty in understanding what constitutes a "Christian" or "true Christian" based on those standards or proofs IMO.
One would then just have to study what is contained in primarily, the New Testament teachings, in order to formulate a good consensus of what the purposes of Christ and His teachings reflected in terms of one becoming a true convert to "Christ." It is by these same standards that we can well determine how or why someone the likes of a Hitler, for example, would most likely NOT be found to be a "true Christian."
I believe the Bible is extremely clear as to this definition. It is this authority by which all else is compared. Failure to hold the Bible as a measuring tool will result in grievous error IMO.
But can't we do all of these things whether we believe in Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha or whether you are pagan, agnostic or atheist anyway ?
In short, is there such a thing as a true christian and if so, who defines the boundaries?
There are many ways to look at the central issue of defining boundaries here. There are several simple statements in the Bible describing the human side of the "coming to Christ," salvation experience. Nevertheless, in spite of their simplicity, each is based on doctrinal truth. The acceptance of Christ by faith is impossible without formulating a precise doctrinal affirmation concerning Him.
Posted: 3/13/2008 9:10:36 AM
"Let the future tell the truth and evaluate each one according to his work and accomplishments. The present is theirs--the
--for which I have
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 3/12/2008 12:29:35 AM
^^^hey -- maybe the kid knows a thing or two of what he's talking about and he can teach Sunday school anytime as far as I'm concerned.....
now let's see--Reincarnation and the Bible....some people here are claiming to accept the concept and the Bible teachings as well...but did Christ teach the same concepts?? I don't believe He did. I'm thinking of the one where He teaches about who's wife will she be in the resurrection....He states no ones....for they shall be as the angels in heaven. Now there's a thought. The thought is that they are spirit beings transformed to a heavenly environment where no more procreation takes place. I guess that squashes the re-birthing theories.
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 2/28/2008 8:49:35 PM
But debate? With a literalist? What possible "debate" can their be? AFAIK you seem to be pretty certain you KNOW the "heaven breathed" answers already so no debate as such can be possible...of course, the possibility that you could be utterly wrong or possibly even out of your depth wouldn't even occur to you.
no..you -on the other hand, appear to have all the spiritual answers as evidenced by the new horns now sprouting from your head--very cute. Wrong?? How can I be wrong in experiencing an event in my life which could only be orchestrated by an omnipotent source?? I hardly think I'm going down the rabbit hole there sir...but yes, I am confident in WHOM I have believed in. I am also quite confident in what the Bible says. Good enough for me and others--unfortunately not good enough for you and many. Alas, the masses are not always right are they? Especially when it relates to the kingdom of God.
In any case you still didn't deal with the additional "hen" problem... or the Psalm problem, where others may be referred to as "gods".
As for the hen problem, the issue is quite simple as it is old. In other words, which came first-the chicken or the egg? OOPs..uhh..Why did the chicken cross the road? uhh.. well..ok
But of course not having bothered to read about Philo, you probably wouldn't have spotted that and assumed that "God did it" or some such stuff...
so what you're saying is that I'm not 'feeling' 'philo' is that it?
And who is to say that in a previous incarnation one would have to manifest all of the same characteristics of an existence every time? If Jesus were God incarnate, perhaps, but if he were only a mere mortal man like the rest of us...Oh, right, you need that belief for your view of religion, forget I said it. Well for anyone who doesn't have to believe in that part, certainly in Orthodox Judaism it is a possibility and has been since the beginning of what Christians would call "biblical times."
They just don't believe in it and don't teach it for some reason. They like to dare to be different in some ways...each to their own I guess, nothing wrong with that. *shrug*
hmmm..WAY too philisophical..why do we have to come back as anything anyway? To 'fix' our karma so to speak? 'Ahem*bullshit. Or because some higher 'ascended master' channeling source told us this? Ahem**even more bullshit. See, this is where the Bible sets the course for truth and stays on course. The compass that I choose to be guided by--MADE the Earth's magnetic fields IMO. Other compasses..they just go spinning in ALL directions whereby many are lost.
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 2/28/2008 12:51:48 AM
^^^^^hmmm....does tmf actually want to argue/debate Scripture? This should be amusing. Can't deal with John 1 though huh? > "..and the word
Now try refuting that. Who was the WORD again?
Back on track: no--reincarnation is not a belief or teaching that can be found in the Bible or in the teachings of Christ. Just ask Mary--she gave birth to Him once....then had other children besides. None of the others shared the remarkable characteristics of her first-born IMO. The contention is that Jesus had a pre-incarnate existence prior to coming to this Earth which some may construe as reincarnation after being born of Mary. Think again. If Jesus was indeed a reincarnate being, He would have been called Jesus the 2nd, instead of just Jesus.
Does reincarnation go against all Christian biblical beliefs?
Posted: 2/27/2008 10:03:08 PM
Jesus never claimed to be god. Your theory is a non-starter. He claimed to be the son of god.
While Jesus was on earth there was much confusion about who He was. Some thought He was a wise man or a great prophet. Others thought He was a madman. Still others couldn't decide or didn't care. But Jesus said, "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). That means He claimed to be
nothing less than God in human flesh.
Many people don't understand that Jesus claimed to be God. They're content to think of Him as little more than a great moral teacher. But even His enemies understood His claims to deity. That's why they tried to stone Him to death (John 5:18; 10:33) and eventually had Him crucified IMO.(John 19:7).
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/24/2008 8:25:04 AM
hmmmm..^^^gonna have to get back on this one. What about if we do a study on whether such a place exists or not according to God's word? If it exists, then it must serve a purpose. If it is a myth, then one can safely assume in all reality, that none will be found there. But--does it exist or not?-- is really the crux of the matter I would think. Also-- I am quite curious now as to when or how God revealed this to you consigliere.
Have you ever actually seen a UFO?
Posted: 2/22/2008 11:26:57 AM
one of the most intriguing of UFO-related cases occurred before Roswell on December 5, 1945 when a squadron of 5 Avenger Torpedo bombers with 14 experienced crew members flew out of Ft. Lauderdale Naval Air force station in Florida. It was a short routine flight. Each plane had a full load of fuel and weather conditions were excellent. Then something strange happened. The flight leader called in and reported not having any sense of direction. Air control then ordered the squadron to head due West. The leader, with alarm in his voice then said, "We don't know which way is West--everything is wrong.. strange...we can't be sure of any direction..even the ocean doesn't look as it should!!"
He then stated that weird, unidentified aircraft were closing in on them..
His radio went dead. All
planes disappeared without leaving a trace.
A giant Martin Mariner with a crew of 13 was dispatched to search for the crew of the five missing planes. It had the capability to land on the roughest of seas...but this plane also disappeared into the grim silence of the Atlantic.
What followed was the greatest search operation in history. For five days an armada of 300 planes and 21 ships criss-crossed the sea and sky, but no trace of the 6 aircraft or 27 crew members were to be found. To this day, it remains a mystery as to what happened. Some believe the mystery may be found in the UFO phenomenon.
question: why do jehova's witness's seem to be so pushy not judging just a question
Posted: 2/21/2008 12:07:17 PM
message #223: ^^^^^^this is quite true. I have met more than several people who have been emotionally scarred from this cult..and its members. From recollection..there was excommunication involved even from one spouse to another. In other words, the 'Elders' of said church organization would demand a separation between a husband and wife until the other was brought into subjection according to their standards. This is UNACCEPTABLE. It goes well beyond the norm where matters of doctrine and faith are concerned, particularly between the relationship of a man and his wife.
Excuse me but I think that's a difference of opinion and not a stumbling block to you personally. If you are confident in your own beliefs then what someone else believes cannot "take away" from what you perceive as "the glory and honor and diety of Christ."
Blasphemy? Oh dear! Let's reinstitute the inquisition and flail the flesh from their bones before we execute them. How shall we do it? I know! Let's crucify them!
You simply want to argue doctrine and feel righteous. Who will all you mainstream Christians abuse next if you ever manage to purge the earth of those JWs and Mormons? Will the Catholics and Protestants riot and murder each other in the streets like in Belfast?
uhh no. When the veracity of the Bible and God's truths and contents are being attacked, people have a right to question, argue, extol, it's beliefs to others in a way that it will bring correction, reproof, understanding, WITHOUT any undue violence. The Apostle Paul did as much when addressing crowds in his time. It is no different today. He did this without violence or murder correct? I am confident of my beliefs...I am also confident that Christ and others stood for the truths of God's words and not the twisting, deceitful dogma and doctrine which can and DOES exist. You can also get off your soapbox now as you used way too much soap in that load.
question: why do jehova's witness's seem to be so pushy not judging just a question
Posted: 2/21/2008 9:23:16 AM
^^^^^^^^because it takes way from the glory and honor and diety of Christ and is to be considered a most blasphemous distortion of Scripture... much more so than the tongues doctrinal error. I would argue with both but obviously, it is a HUGE point of contention for most Believers in Christ and His word.
question: why do jehova's witness's seem to be so pushy not judging just a question
Posted: 2/21/2008 8:10:11 AM
HELLO EVERYBODY,WELL I HAVE BEEN READING ALOT OF THINGS ON THIS THREAT FOR OVER 2 HOURS NOW....AND ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT THERES ALOT OF MEAN PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT DONT EVEN REALLY KNOW WHAT WITNESSES ARE REALLY ABOUT..THERE IS ALOT OF DIFFRENT THINGS GOING ON OUT THERE...MOST ARE LIES ....WE ARE NOT A SECT WE TRY TO FOLLOW WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ...
wow..somebody forgot to take the caps key off.
Let's just stop right there!! Would you then deny the fact that JW's admit to the fact that they view Jesus Christ as being Michael, the archangel?? Because I HAVE confronted them in regards to this UN-BIBLICAL confession and they admitted and confirmed it to be true of their beliefs!! Others I have met and questioned also stated their disbelief that the Holy Spirit can enter a person..or seal them with salvation.
So I do encourage anyone who is truly interested in know what JWs believe/teach to ask a JW. Yes...
that's why I did ask them.
Have you ever actually seen a UFO?
Posted: 2/18/2008 11:17:07 AM
theres only one thing I can tell u is that aliens are real.I cant tell u why but believe it or not they are really real.
^^^^^it's ok son--we know why the're real...
Have you ever actually seen a UFO?
Posted: 2/18/2008 11:15:57 AM
Has anyone ever seen an angel or a demon?
Posted: 2/16/2008 11:51:23 PM
Show me any evidence that this comes from an outside source. Perhaps a recording of an angelic warning? How about some testable results in a statistical analysis of "guardian angel" believers vs "non guardian angel believers" in car accidents?
This is supposed to be funny I assume. Well sadly, recordings of any such nature could be doctored of course and I'm really not going to go to any great lengths to find data analysis to describe or prove any of this.
What you do have is first-hand testimonial evidences...and they are staring you in the face. The choice is yours to believe or not. Obviously, this is not good enough for you.
I cite the above case in dealing with Stonestongue. Now I don't know Dave from Adam, but for this case, the opinion is offered that he may not be alive today had it not been for a spiritual intervention of a 'ghostly' appearance. It both spoke, and appeared to him as he sat in the confines of his room while being quite awake at the time. The affect this had in his own life was one of causative reflection to seek out other alternatives or perspectives rather than to end his life. Now he may see it as his own inner self pleading to stay the course..and I may see it as a construct of God in dealing with human lives as His grace would permit.
The possibility remains though, and I believe it to be true-- that it happened. And I am glad that it happened and he is here today to speak about it. This isn't always the case though. And many young people die unfortunately. However, eyewitness testimony is a very viable construct in a court of law..and always will be. It is a most powerful denominator in view of evidence.
The amusing thing is that the angel believers in here can't even agree on the nature of angels. You're of course assuming a evangelical christian viewpoint. Meanwhile ignoring other possibilities.
these opinions vary according to the religious background of the viewer. The fact remains--they saw 'something' which appeared in bodily form or forms and in some cases, spake. Opinions will ALWAYS vary as to their real source. My opinion is no greater than theirs!
I.E. Aliens, Friendly invisible unicorns, forces of light, time traveling space bunnies, or simply dellusions as a result of people nearly being killed in a car accident.
as these show. But bear in mind, there is a distinct possibility based on many testimonies, that there can be deceptive qualities to such phenomenon per say.
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/16/2008 9:26:15 AM
This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Consigliere- the above cannot be considered 'reconciliation' in any way, shape, or form. If you think it is..then I have a book of Mormon for your review as well...(not really).
Why is it that you consider two judgments, but you cannot comprehend two reconciliations, when the scriptures spell this out in much more direct language.
19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
This is the full restoration and the final reconciliation of ALL THINGS.
this is a reconciliation in regards to all things pertaining to Christ. This does not demote the fact that human spirits will serve their intended purposes in judgment as much the angels of God have had and will still continue to have. The reconciliation of all things is not a universal salvational concept for the entire human race unfortunately. It involves only those things which God intends to be involved. Your thinking obscures the logic and purpose of Christ and ALL his dealings and teachings on Earth and in Heaven IMO.
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/16/2008 8:07:00 AM
if as certain it is appointed that men will die and face judgment, then how is it that believers are excluded from the judgment that is said to be appointed to all those who will certainly die. believers are also of that lot that are men appointed to die and be judged, are they not?
it is for that very fact that we know there are two types of judgments for persons in the after life. For the Believer is not judged in the same manner as an Unbeliever; Rather, they are judged for determining their rewards according to their works subsequent to salvation or faith in Christ. Believers will NOT be exempt from a certain judgment. As the following suggests:
"Now if any man build upon this foundation
gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is...."
in the Bible stands for Deity. All of the furniture in the tabernacle was overlaid with gold. Gold represents the highest thing up there because it is the highest thing down here. How do we know it is so? The streets of Jerusalem are gold, and it is a golden city, like pure gold. Gold stands for Deity. Every time that you worship Christ like He was God, and every time you magnify Jesus Christ like He was God, and every time you praise Him as God, then you lay up gold in heaven. This is a sacrifice. It is called the
"sacrifice of praise"
What is silver? Silver in the Bible is the price of redemption. When Jesus Christ was sold, He was sold for thirty pieces of silver. When the Jews went into battle, they had to give every man so much silver as an atonement for their souls. Every time you tell a man how to be saved, you lay up silver in heaven.
"Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven...For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
What are precious stones? Malachi 3:17-18 says,
"And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him. Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth him not."
He said His people are like jewels, precious jewels. Didn't you ever read in 1 Pet. 2 about living stones? First Peter 2:5 says,
"lively stones, are built up a spiritual house."
Saved people are likened unto precious stones. Did you ever read,
"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6)?
Those are your converts. You don't take your converts and turn them over to dogs and swine. What are dogs and swine? Peter says that they are false teachers and prophets (2Peter 2:1, 22). The precious stones are the people that you have led to Christ. In Zechariah 9:16, the saved people are said to be
"as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land."
When the prodigal son came home, the old man said,
"Put a ring upon his finger"
--a birthstone. When you are born again, you have a birthday, and you are like a precious stone in God's sight. What does that mean? That means that the people that you lead to Christ are your stones, and they are precious stones in a crown.
"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."
Judging from the above verse, it is quite clear that Believers in Christ will receive a 'judgment' as already stated. But this is not the same judgment as for unbelievers.
In revelation it states that Jesus Christ's eyes are like
"..a flame of fire,"
which means our works are someday going to be subjected to the scrutinizing eyes of the Lord Jesus Christ. These holy eyes are going to pierce down through our soul and try our works, and I suppose, in type, ignite what we have done. Then, whatever has not been done through love will not last thru the fire. It is the sort. It is the motive. Paul said that if he gave his body to be burned and had not love, it was nothing. (1 Cor. 13:3).
Now we see in Scripture that there is first, a resurrection of all the righteous dead found in Christ...(
"Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years."
Rev. 20:6)these have their part in the judgment seat of Christ obviously. BUT there appears a SECOND resurrection...for the unrighteous before God:
"And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened. which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 10:22:23 PM
When we come to this thought of God's judgment we approach a subject upon which there has been a fathomless sea of ignorance and misunderstanding. Contrary to the popular opinions of the religious systems there is no such thing as a GENERAL JUDGMENT for all men. Such a doctrine is pagan in origin and flows from the philosophies of demons.
wow. Mr. Eby has just disagreed with God's word in stating that there is no general judgment for mankind. Period. End of story. This man has just lost all credibility with me.
"As it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 10:11:19 PM
^^^^I disagree never..the majority of spiritual issues can be easily discerned...others -it seems, are subject to much speculation or argument. But the main issues are clear or should be clear. Of course, Revelation is the big toughie..but I'm also quite sure God would have us to understand it or at least reveal it to us personally at an appointed time.
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 9:55:02 PM
As it is appointed unto men
to die, (**
but after this the judgment." Heb 9:27
~we will all face a judgment IMO--but are there two??
Two different judgments in God's Kingdom??
If the afterlife is all the same for every one involved--WHY ARE THERE TWO DIFFERENT JUDGMENTS??
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 9:46:29 PM
I suppose the point that I was trying to make is that this condition and state of being is spoken of applying to those who are alive on this earth, and is not addressing the fate of those who have gone to the grave with or without Christ. The wrath of God is presently upon those who are alienated from Christ, and they are experiencing this wrath in this earthly realm, God's wrath abides on them. They are not in hell being punished for thier sins in the literal sense of the meaning that traditional christianity implies....these people are alive and walking about in the earthly realm.
It stands to reason that God's wrath transcends from here (Earth) into the after life as well. As spirit beings ourselves, found much as in the nature of angels (Christ referred to some men as being of the same spirit nature as Satan himself) (others He described as neither marrying or given in marriage..as the angels)we face an existence confined to the heavenly laws of God in the after life. God doesn't just put mankind's spirits to pasture or sleep either. They will all be found 'alive' after death. There are TWO judgments my friend. One for the Believer--"The Judgment Seat of Christ." And the other--"The White Throne Judgment." Please tell me Consigliere--which would you prefer??
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 9:15:06 PM
hey consigliere -good to see you as well.
Is this verse talking of eternal punishment in hellfire and is that stated anywhere in the passage? or is your understannding being interpreted by perhaps the traditional interpretation that has been handed down for centuries and you also believe to be true?
no tradition here..just my own thoughts, feelings, and well-held beliefs.
This is a simple statement of the effects of belief and unbelief, regardless of the duration of the consequences. As long as one believes, life abides with him, the aionian life of the Gospel, while the unbeliever is deprived of this life. "He that believeth hath everlasting life," though by unbelief he may forfeit it, and regain it again by believing again. Such passages as these illustrate the New Testament use of the term:
yes--so if the unbeliever is deprived of this life...he is subject to the wrath of God. He is outside of God's kingdom and quite possibly worse as the verse suggests:
"And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
this speaks of torment--the same as for the false prophet and anti-christ. No difference here. No escaping either. God is not mocked, "whatsoever a man sows so shall he reap."
It is much the same for those that receive the identification of the "Beast." They will be punished in the presence of the Lamb and His holy angels.
"You hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins."--Eph.ii:1. The believer hath "passed from death unto life."--John v:24. "We know that we have passed from death unto life because we love the brethren."--I. John iii:14. "To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."--Rom. viii:6.
The question of the duration of the life or the "wrath is not raised in this passage. It remains, in either case, as long as the condition reamins that causes the life or the wrath.
From G3713; properly desire (as a reaching forth or excitement of the mind), that is, (by analogy) violent passion (ire, or [justifiable] abhorrence); by implication punishment: - anger, indignation, vengeance, wrath.
Christians belive that there is no hell???
Posted: 2/15/2008 8:26:15 PM
Who are those "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."
~they are those who are eternally 'lost.'
"He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."
1John 5:12 "He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
thank you nevercannezer-- for jarring my memory banks and reminding me of these all-important verses. I was trying to remember them and seeing your post just stirred them up for me. Of course, we know literally OR figuratively, they pertain to eternal life. So by this we determine that if the wrath of God remains on a person, they have not been measured with the atoning blood of Christ which spells out punishment or the wrath of God.
Has anyone ever seen an angel or a demon?
Posted: 2/15/2008 4:16:43 PM
(also you're forgeting the people who believe in angels who get splattered over the sides of semi trucks, guess they didn't believe enough for the angels to help?)
well, young man--let me just say this: Do you know also that Christians are dying of cancer at the same rate as unbelievers for the most part? I am quite sure that it is not always God's will to intervene and heal people for that matter, although many Christians mistakenly think that.
Charles--What this woman is suggesting is not something new to my ears at all. In fact, I once knew a co-worker who expressed the same thing in relation to driving in traffic. She heard a voice and it also warned her to stop, thus avoiding a fatal or near-fatal accident. This is a very common attribute which promotes the common view of angelic hosts in our midst. Now, I ask you--do you really believe that all these people are deluded or hysterical or in need of psychiatric treatment?
When the evidence in itself really does suggest that the 'help in time of dire need' is coming from an outside source!!
So in essence, what you are doing Charles, is closing your mind to the extreme possibility that there is an OUTSIDE spiritual source. Of course, this would then lend itself to believe in a personable God wouldn't it? This is the decision which you are faced with; To believe or not to believe. As of right now, you believe that most all these people are delusional and therefore, their testimonies bear no evidence. Please think again.
Now I want to tell you something else: I remember once being at a very busy intersection and waiting to make a left turn. As the light changed, I started to enter to make my turn--just then a speeding vehicle just BLEW BY -thru the intersection, and thru the red light passing before me on my left side. It would have certainly creamed me. It missed me by a hair. Another time- I was driving down a country road near my home and I took my eyes off the road in front of me as I was gliding towards a stop sign. As I lifted my focus, I then saw I was right AT the stop sign with traffic speeding by at 60 miles an hour or so. I barely had reaction time to slam my brakes and come to a full stop. Again, I would have been creamed. There were times as a child growing up that seemed as I was walking with my dad to cross a street that I stopped abruptly just in time to avoid a speeding car that flew by in front of me. I can remember this as happening about 3 times in my childhood. Now in ALL those cases Charles, I never once heard a voice or was warned to stop. In fact, I came away thinking "boy I really almost bought it!"
I believe that I could very well have been killed in all those incidents. The fact is I wasn't, but could very well have been as much as any other person out there. These things happen every day of the week. Does it cause me to lose my faith in God? No. Would God have allowed me to die? Yes, quite possibly. Did God supernaturally intervene in every instance? No, not necessarily. Did He intervene possibly? Perhaps or perhaps not.
I truly believe that God knows when your number is up. I believe it is a pure matter of grace in a person's life as to whether there is an intervention from a God-directed source. I also don't believe God absolutely needs angels to intervene or do His bidding as He is God and can quite handle every matter all on His own. I do believe though that we can and do have angels in our midst and they can intervene as God chooses to do. But I also believe that they are not just limited to Believer's in Him either. I also believe if a person and especially a Christian, is not walking rightly before God or in His sight, He can and does 'take' them. This is spoken of in the Bible.
No I think believing in Guardian angels does absolutely nothing but maybe give a false sense of security.
well, not according to their belief patterns. It is not a false hope if they truly believe in an intervention in time of need. It could also very well offer the catalyst or spark that they may need to get them thru whatever it is they are going thru. It is a 'faith factor' so to speak--and a powerful one at that. Just ask the woman who's son is in Iraq or the mom or dad who's daughter is away at college.
Do you think that believing in guardian angels gives you the key to eternal life? Of course not! If your time is up, it's up. What happened to me was 'something' keeping me from possible serious injury.
exactly, which is why it made me think back to my own experiences..
I have a friend at work who was studying the Bible as a new hobby a short time ago. He was driving home late and tired one night on the expressway. He fell asleep and drifted smack into the rear of a highway construction vehicle...waking up with the jolt of that accident and finding that the entire vehicle was demolished but for the small area he sat in. He got out and went away from the vehicle only to see it get struck by another vehicle as well.
No one was injured including the crew of workers belonging to that truck he rear-ended,
who happened to be at the front of the vehicle at the time it was struck.
Coincidence? or divine intervention? I would stake my life on the fact that it was God who protected him. He is a loving father with two small children. His wife is still coping with the loss of her mother to cancer. 'nuff said. It is all a matter of grace my friends. God views a life quite differently than we do. Evidence for this is found in the way He allowed His own people to suffer and die...
This doesn't make sense. What you are saying is that ANY experience of the supernatural is PROOF of the teachings of the Bible... why? So.... if a Indigenous Shaman can trance and speak with his animal guides THAT is proof of the Bibles' veracity? If a Houdoo priest can invoke his gods THAT is proof of the Bibles' veracity? Any concept or experience of the supernatural is proof of the Bibles' teachings? Someone sees a ghost in an old building.. does that count also? NDE's? Nature sprites and dryads? Astral beings?
The premise I see being purported here is that there are only two concepts that can be supported... (gosh I love black and white thinking) either we are just animals and there is NO spiritual realm AT ALL, or there is, but it HAS to be the interpretation of Christianity? There are no other possibilities?
Negative and positive spiritual beings populate almost every single culture that is, or was. in legend and mythology. Even in those who have never had any exposure to Judaism or Christianity (think the Aboriginals of Australia, or the tribes in deep South American jungles.. or the Polynesians)
ravenstar--all those experiences can be found in the Bible --yes. There are also descriptions and warnings of such things. So yes, they are proof that the Bible IS a trustworthy barometer or compass of the supernatural. When you break it down and carefully examine the experiences and resultant testimonies of all these negative/ positive beings, you see patterns in all. And let me state here that in most that they usually proselytize or extol is quite contrary to Biblical principles or doctrines. Both cannot be right. Either the Bible and Christ is a lie and a liar or these other entities are accurate or correct. Both cannot be true. They are opposed one to another. I cannot in all godly conscience embrace any beings or teachings which are contrary to Biblical principles particularly where salvation is involved. For example, the Bible does in no way, shape, or form, extol the belief of reincarnation.
I have spent a whole lot of time researching the paranormal, practicing divination, magick and also automatic writing and many other rituals that are meant to tap into the spiritual realms. I have NEVER experienced an entity that was powerful enough to be either a demon nor an angel. If anything I have found myself there...looking back.. sometimes in a higher frame of awareness, sometimes not. I have sensed ghosts... and echoes though. Very interesting. That has been my experience. That SOMETHING that is not purely physical is out there... is very probable. That is HAS to be "proof" of the Bibles' teachings? No. There are many ways to interpret such things, and it may be so alien to us that the only way we CAN understand it is through our religious ideologies.
yes, and I too have been tempted to explore into some of these realms. I once was tempted to explore 'astral-projection' but threw the book away when I realized there were too many unknown variables in leaving one's body. It is the same for Ufology--I was becoming obsessed with the phenomenon and it then started to become negative to me. I put the brakes on..and actually had more than one chance to delve right in further into the phenomenon. I believe there is a WORLD of deception when it comes to these things.
I am not willing to 'step' into that world. I choose to believe the Bible and its warnings.
One of those being: "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
Show ALL Forums