Shad
Veteran Member
Which shows an error as the Hittites were more powerful than Judah as a nation at each respective peaks. More so one did not exist at the time of Judah
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are there verses in the bible that have been proven to be scientifically true after the writing?
- Thread starter A Son of God
- Start date
Which shows an error as the Hittites were more powerful than Judah as a nation at each respective peaks. More so one did not exist at the time of Judah
Wrong.
Verses fourteen through eighteen are quite clear,
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים.14
טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן.15
טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. 16
יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. 17
יח וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 18
יט וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם רְבִיעִי.
Nothing about creating the sun there.
You certainly have misinterpreted the scriptures.
Wrong on two counts. One, the NIV is not the authority, the original Hebrew Scriptures are. Two, the original Hebrew Scriptures are clear, no sun creation on day four:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יְהִי מְאֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הַיּוֹם וּבֵין הַלָּיְלָה; וְהָיוּ לְאֹתֹת וּלְמוֹעֲדִים, וּלְיָמִים וְשָׁנִים. 14
טו וְהָיוּ לִמְאוֹרֹת בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם, לְהָאִיר עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 15
טז וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים. 16
יז וַיִּתֵּן אֹתָם אֱלֹהִים, בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם, לְהָאִיר, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. 17
יח וְלִמְשֹׁל, בַּיּוֹם וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּלְהַבְדִּיל, בֵּין הָאוֹר וּבֵין הַחֹשֶׁךְ; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 18
יט וַיְהִי-עֶרֶב וַיְהִי-בֹקֶר, יוֹם רְבִיעִי.
No creation on the sun going on there.
The fact that your refer to the days as “first day”, “third day”, and “fourth day” reveals you probably don’t even speak Hebrew.. You are just aping Christian mistranslations and dogma. You don’t know what you are a talking about.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sorry but you are not an authority. I will take various translations of the Bible from the Hebrew by experts in the field rather than an anonymous unpublished self declared "expert".
You need to do a lot better than that.
I didn’t presume any authority at all. I quoted the Torah itself, in its original Hebrew. It is quite clear. I posted it for you to read. Your translations, by definition, are inferior to the original Hebrew text. No mention in the original Hebrew of the sun being created on day four. Note “day four”, not “fourth day” as you wrote. That you don’t even respect the difference is yet more evidence you don’t know what you are talking about.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Yes, but one must clarify something first. You are not going to find this in stuff like the idea that Genesis took place in six literal days, or for that matter, the creation order seems out of order.
https://truthfortheworld.org/science-proves-the-bible
However, some of the finer points are right.
https://truthfortheworld.org/science-proves-the-bible
However, some of the finer points are right.
- In 1820 A.D. a man named Hubert Spencer gave the world five scientific principles by which man may study the unknown. They are time, force, energy, space, and matter. However, Moses, by inspiration, gave us those scientific principles in Genesis 1:1. In the beginning—time; God—force; “created—energy; the heavens—space; and the earth—matter.
- Another example of how science and the Bible agree relates to the blood in our bodies. Man now knows that blood is necessary for survival. If our bodies lose too much blood, we will die. However, man did not discover this principle until the 19th century. Before that time, blood-letting was practiced, and many died because draining blood from their bodies drained the very source of life. Moses, again writing by inspiration hundreds of years ago, told us something man did not know until much later. "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life" (Leviticus 17:11).
- In the book of Job, the inspired writer in one verse reveals two scientific principles not known to man until much later. "He stretcheth out the north over empty space, And hangeth the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). There is a place in the North where no stars exist, which cannot be seen with the naked eye. How did the writer of Job know this? Also, the same verse declares that God hangs the earth on nothing. We know this is true, but we have only known it for about 350 years. God’s inspired writer told us over 3,000 years ago that the earth is held in place by gravitational forces!
- When we come to the psalms, we find an interesting statement in Psalm 8:8. The passage mentions "The birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, Whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas." The phrase the paths of the seas caused a man named Matthew Fontaine Maury to begin a search which led to the discovery of ocean currents.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is worthless in the form that you presented. Luckily Google translate exists and now I am home where I can copy and paste easily. It disagrees with you:
"16 And God made the two great lights: the great light, the reign of the day, and the small light for the night and the stars."
Hey, that is almost exactly the same as the translation that I posted. Now you may have some trouble understanding this. I can help you with that.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
So then, what are you saying? Are you saying that God did not create the universe in six days and that he did not rest on the seventh day?
Can the copy of the original Hebrew bible that you have today be trusted?
Only twice is the father of Shelah mentioned in that copy, in Genesis 11: 12; where it is said that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah, and again in 1st Chronicles 1: 18; It is written that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah.
Whereas the Septuagint states in Genesis 11: 12; that Arpachshad is the father of Cainam, who is the father of Shelah. Again in 1st Chronicles Arpachshad is the father of Sala/ Shelah.
Plus in the book of Jubilees it is written...……… [Chapter 8] 1 In the twenty-ninth jubilee, in the first week, [1373 A.M.] in the beginning thereof Arpachshad took to himself a wife and her name was Rasu’eja, the daughter of Susan, the daughter of Elam, and she 2 bare him a son in the third year in this week, [1375 A.M.] and he called his name Kainam. And the son grew, and his father taught him writing, and he went to seek for himself a place where he might seize for 3 himself a city. And he found a writing which former (generations) had carved on the rock, and he read what was thereon, and he transcribed it and sinned owing to it; for it contained the teaching of the Watchers in accordance with which they used to observe the omens of the sun and moon and 4 stars in all the signs of heaven. And he wrote it down and said nothing regarding it; for he was 5 afraid to speak to Noah about it lest he should be angry with him on account of it. And in the thirtieth jubilee, [1429 A.M.] in the second week, in the first year thereof, he took to himself a wife, and her name was Melka, the daughter of Madai, the son of Japheth, and in the fourth year [1432 A.M.] he begat a son, and 6 called his name Shelah; for he said: ’Truly I have been sent.’
The fact that Luke 3: records Shelah as the Son of Cainam who is the son of Arpachshad, reveals that he did not get that information from the Hebrew bible of today.
Your current bible also states in Exodus 12: 40; that the Israelites were in the land of Egypt for 430 years, whereas the Septuagint says; "And the sojourning of the children of Israel, while they sojourned in the land of Egypt and Chanaan/Canaan was 430 years.
So according to the Septuagint and to Paul in Galatians 3: 17; the children of Israel left Egypt 430 years after God had told the 75 year old Abraham to move into the land of Canaan, which he promised to give to him and his descendants, 25 years later Abraham sired Isaac, who, at the ago of 60, sired Jacob whose name was changed to Israel, and at the Age of 130, Israel entered the land of Egypt and 215 years after Abraham had entered the land of Canaan, God called his son Israel out of Egypt.
So I don't put too much faith in your Hebrew bible, which Jerome later translated into Latin.
Last edited:
This represents more historical facts confirmed by archaeology is only normal for ancient literature 'set in history,' and not science.
As far as real science goes this is highly interpretive since so much of the Bible is not literally compatible with science.
Ancient literature 'set in history' will obviously contain historical facts, and also contain claims of historical facts that have been confirmed as false, exaggerated, or true in part as in the accounts in Exodus.
Yes, some historical facts have been confirmed, but nothing significant as far as science goes.
If someone cuts and pastes the original Hebrew “
אלוהים עשה, שני האורות הגדולים: האור הגדול, שלטונו של היום, ואת אור הלילה ואת הכוכבים של הכוכבים.” into Google Translate, it converts it into English as “God did, the two great lights: the great light, the reign of the day, and the light of the night and the stars of the stars.” So it does it wrong. (Nor does it translate it as you said it did.) Then if the process is reversed and that English is converted back to Hebrew it produces, “
וַיַּעַשׂ אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-שְׁנֵי הַמְּאֹרֹת הַגְּדֹלִים: אֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַגָּדֹל, לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַיּוֹם, וְאֶת-הַמָּאוֹר הַקָּטֹן לְמֶמְשֶׁלֶת הַלַּיְלָה, וְאֵת הַכּוֹכָבִים” Which, of course, doesn’t match the original confirming the Google Translated introduces errors. Anyone that cares to do so can reproduce these results. So much for Google Translate. It is fine for simple phrases and single words, but not elaborate prose.
The NIV is a Christian (mis)translation riddled with errors. Let’s look at an example. Your NIV translates Genesis 1:5 as “God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.” Focusing in the end, the Hebrew words that the NIV translates as “the first day” are יום and אחד. First let’s note the it is יום and not היום. In Hebrew a ה prefix indicates an article, in this case “the”. But there isn’t one in this verse. The NIV mistranslated it by adding the word “the”. It should be “day” not “the [first] day”. Then it mistranslates אחד as “first”. But אחד doesn’t mean first, it means “one”. Try inputting it in the Google Translate if you like. Google Translate converts the English compound term “first day” into “היום הראשון”. It coverts day one (or one day) as יום אחד. The Hebrew word for first (conjugated for this application) would be הראשון. This is just one example, there are many, many reasons to fault the NIV. The NIV fails as a reliable translation.
So Google Translate doesn’t agree with the NIV. In other words, your two sources don’t agree with each other. Goggle Translate is error prone. Your translations are wrong. Then to top it off, your NIV doesn’t mention the sun, it talks about a great light. No sun creation there.
Day four of the creation account is about setting up the celestial body for earthly time reckoning. The sun and moon weren’t created that day. They were set up as time references along with the other celestial bodies.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is hardly elaborate prose. And the translation agrees with that of other experts. Meanwhile you can't seem to support your claims at all.
I am sorry, but your complaints simply have no traction. If you don't like the NIV what translation do you like? Remember you are not an authority in this argument. You are simply a poster with an agenda.
You appear to be retranslating after the fact. Quite a few Christians and even Muslims make that error.
I have little doubt that you prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew, despite how wrong that is. Of course saying the Septuagint is rather loose with the facts anyways, the extant earliest copies don’t even agree with each other. The real Septuagint is lost. The one we have today is a Christian adulterated version, and unreliable. And to suggest that a translation is superior to the text it translates is hilarious. According to the Christian New Testament Jesus fully accepted the Hebrew Scriptures. He quoted from them, but never did he use the Septuagint. Since Jesus never says the Hebrew texts he had were wrong, which he presumably would have if they were, we know he thought the Hebrew Scriptures he had were not in error. Jesus quoted from a Hebrew Isaiah scroll in a synagogue even. Yet Christians want to keep the Septuagint. We also know that the Masoretic Hebrew text we have to today matches the one Jesus had. Archeology, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, confirm this. The reason you want to keep your error filled Septuagint is because the Hebrew Scriptures don’t agree with how your New Testament authors quotes of the Jewish Scriptures, not because the Mosoretic text has errors. That’s the real issue. So are you going to give up on the Septuagint and follow Jesus’ acceptance of the Masoretic Hebrew text or not?
Riders
Well-Known Member
Is not Nebuchadnezzar the king who killed all Jewish boys under the age of 2 when Jesus was born?
I don't believe that fact as I've heard it by Biblical historians has ever been disputed, yes the King of Jerusalem killed over 1000 or maybe it was a hundred baby boys under the age of 2 trying to get rid of any would be kings because the stars astrological signs said that a Messiah was to e born.
I have never doubted that fact for an instant.That does not mean Jesus was the Messiah to come there were many Messiahs and Jesus may have been a real person maybe not. But yes the astrology signs said the Jewish Messiah according to old Testament scripture was to come.
But with the proof that has been presented some people here say no way there was never any proof that Jesus existed either. But I have read one or 2 posts from folks who are not Christians who say yes Jesus lived and there's no way you can deny it because there was 1 or 2 people who wrote about him then too.
But even I come to te conclusion that he had to be real in my mind in no way does the bible ever prove him being God at all or the God man of the Trinity church.
siti
Well-Known Member
That is an entirely different question - we don't even know for certain that life originated in our solar system or came from elsewhere - we just don't know that. It is entirely possible that some kind of extremophile lifeforms may have emerged (or landed) very soon after the sun and planets condensed - we don't know and we probably never will because any evidence (if not the life itself) would almost certainly have been obliterated by the cataclysmic impacts and geological processes that marked the early history of the earth.
On the other hand, we do know that there were no fruit trees on earth before the sun settled into the 'main sequence' phase of its evolution - in fact we know there were no land plants (more complex than algae) on earth at all until the earth and the sun were about 3.75 billion years old. Fruit trees were an even later development, certainly not more than about 100 million years or so ago - by then, the sun had been burning merrily through its main sequence stage for close to 4.5 billion years.
siti
Well-Known Member
Maybe - we have always had cats and dogs together - but they have never really adored each other - in fact our remaining cat is a grumpy old bully who our dogs avoid like the plague. Anyway - I have to admit I'm not really sure whether dogs really try to bury their poop but they do that foot scraping thing when they're done - I don't know f they are trying - unsuccessfully - to bury it or whether they are adding further to their territorial scent markers. Cats certainly bury their droppings and presumably this behavior minimizes the risk of potential predators sniffing out their whereabouts. Maybe the origin of the Mosaic toilet rule was similar. Or maybe toilet hygiene was just more commonly appreciated back then than we imagine. I certainly don't think that this verse suggests any need to invoke a divinely inspired knowledge of modern science - not crapping on one's own doorstep is probably a perfectly natural (albeit not terribly common) evolutionary strategy.You have given me something new today. I didn't know that dogs bury their excrement. You think those dogs were around cats they absolutely adored?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, Nebuchadnezzar was long before that. You are conflating him with Herod the Great.
The Anointed
Well-Known Member
Shaul wrote……. I have little doubt that you prefer the Septuagint over the Hebrew, despite how that is. wrong
The Anointed…….That is your opinion, not mine. According to the Hebrew bible, Abraham was 58 years old when Noah died, do you believe that?
Shaul wrote……. Of course saying the Septuagint is rather loose with the facts anyways, the extant earliest copies don’t even agree with each other. The real Septuagint is lost.
The Anointed…….. And where would we find the original Torah.
Shaul wrote……. The one we have today is a Christian adulterated version, and unreliable.
The Anointed…… And you believe that the Hebrew bible, which states that Arpachshad is the father of Shelah, and that the Israelites were in the land of Egypt for 430 years to the day, is reliable, do you?
Josephus the Historian, identifies the Israelites with the Shepherd Kings [Hyksos] and that they left Egypt in 1567 B C, and destroyed Jericho 40 years later.
Kathleen Kenyon, a most respected archaeologist dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952 to 1958, her results were confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests, which dated the destruction of Jericho to 1562 BC (Plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.
The radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction of Jericho to 1562 BC (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%, confirm that the biblical date of 1527 BC for the destruction, agrees with Kathleen Kenyon’s findings.
1562 (minus 38 years) [1562-38=1524 BC.] this would mean that Jericho fell somewhere between 1562 and 1524 BC, close enough to the 40 years after Josephus’ date for the Exodus in 1567. [1567-40=1527 BC]
Try reconciling those date, with your preferred bibles statement that the Israelites were in the land of Egypt for 430 years to the day.
Shaul wrote…….And to suggest that a translation is superior to the text it translates is hilarious. According to the Christian New Testament Jesus fully accepted the Hebrew Scriptures. He quoted from them, but never did he use the Septuagint. Since Jesus never says the Hebrew texts he had were wrong, which he presumably would have if they were, we know he thought the Hebrew Scriptures he had were not in error. Jesus quoted from a Hebrew Isaiah scroll in a synagogue even. Yet Christians want to keep the Septuagint. We also know that the Masoretic Hebrew text we have to today matches the one Jesus had. Archeology, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, confirm this. The reason you want to keep your error filled Septuagint is because the Hebrew Scriptures don’t agree with how your New Testament authors quotes of the Jewish Scriptures, not because the Mosoretic text has errors. That’s the real issue. So are you going to give up on the Septuagint and follow Jesus’ acceptance of the Masoretic Hebrew text or not?
The Anointed...…. From where did Luke receive the correct information that Kainam was the father of Shelah and not Arpachshad as the Hebrew bible erroneously states? Certainly not from your preferred bible.
From where did the apostles receive the information that the heavenly observers/watchers, who defiled themselves with the daughters of Man, were chained in everlasting darkness until the day of their consummation? Certainly not from your preferred bible.
From where did Peter the apostle receive the information that this universe will one day burn up and disappear, after which God will create a new heavens and a new Earth? Certainly not from your preferred bible.
From where did Moses receive the information that all sin was to be ascribed to Azazel? Certainly not from your preferred Bible.
And Enoch was carried to the ends of time where he witnessed the heavens burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth into the Great Abyss [Black Hole], which is described as the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, beyond which, there was nothing.
The fact that Luke correctly states that Shelah is the son of Kainam, and many, many teachings of the apostles, reveal that they did not receive their information from your preferred bible of today.
I rest my case.
You are probably thinking of Herod the Great, not Nebuchadnezzar.
Your are just spouting nonsense. Thr Hebrew Scriptures don’t say that Abraham was 58 when Noah died. Genesis 25 says Abraham was 175 when he died. Luke didn’t get the “correct information. That’s the point. The Torah is correct. If Luke says something different, it is Luke that is wrong. (Duh!) Azazel is the name given to a demon that consumes the “scapegoat”. HaShem told Moses this was to be done. You don’t accept that HaShem spoke to Moses?
Who knows what your even talking about with Enoch or what that has to do with anything.
You seemed confused that the Christian New Testament can be right while the Jewish Scriptures are wrong. That’s not possible. The Christian New Testament affirms the correctness of the Jewish Scriptures. But the reverse is possible. The Jewish Scriptures can be right while the Christian New Testament wrong. That is possible.