Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

[ppp]

See bold

No relevance.

 

[Wandering Monk]

@Brian2Once again, the gospel author had misinterpreted passage from another book, which had nothing to do with the messiah and nothing to do with Joseph, Mary and Jesus living in Egypt and then leaving Egypt.

Here is how I think this all shook out: Judaism has a long tradition of creative interpretation of their sacred texts that seem to have no relation to the literal reading of the text. Read any midrash or targum on the Torah and you will understand what I mean. I suspect that the NT writers were doing the same thing, but when those NT texts fell into the hands of later, non-Jewish church fathers, those church fathers took the creative interpretive methods of the NT authors as literal truth.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans. Natural. Origin species human.

Human as whole form not scientific at all....whole is non science says I look at origin species after the saviour was born as ice.

As sacrificed dead life were giants. Dinosaurs. As correct I look I see human advised. Dead. Deceased. Body type exact.

Seen observed natural science is exact advised only as the whole one forms. Natural. No theory involved.

Not a thesis or a story..exact term as origin and one. Natural not scientific.

O time he says numbers or.
___________ time line he says. Science.

Natural the heavens is neither body term owned lights presence. Not science.

One hence is not a theory. It's ownership any type of itself is one form. Body type it's own one. Not science.

Humans said humans are evil by what they think. What words they use as just a human.

Theists who discuss not a human existing own and use evil human thoughts against natural existing. No argument and it is basic legal. By identity natural.

Was the you are just a human being human and accept your natural place.

Versus human liars humans inhumanity by determined references that then involved machine theories.

So evil thoughts of humans led to evil bodies.

None of which a human owned. Cold highest term owned every natural body.

We don't own as the human type rock stone nor nuclear dusts.

We are not any humans terms as god humans sciences...evil as direct evil thoughts. God was involved with evil said natural humans.

That by terms not only doesn't honour natural presence human they burn the use of our water life Cooling in every alchemic incident.

Claiming I was using your holy life oxygenated water to state why God types existed in any human determined references. By any choice activity I partake in as the human only.

A direct human thought believed as the evil lie itself. About our life exact spirit term presence is holy water.

Humans thinking unnaturally was determined a humans evil thought. By reference what they said...how they said it...why they said it.

The one hundred percent human reasoned advice no man is God. Legal status. Book shut. Don't read any application.

Reading allowed the theist their evil minded human status again. Stories of evil. My thoughts human created your life using evil terms and not any term a humans living life. Was exactly advised.

Human sex by human parents was the exact human placed story. That sex as first two humans only said the story was about humans was only the... why answer.....why evil humans existed.

Born from babies as humans.

As mother said holding a little baby innocent in her arms did not advise her about the monster minded inhumane man he would become.

It was exactly already known reasoned why any human doing evil was just a human choosing it.

You can't blame the life inherited for a changed mind. But you can reference bad dangerous human behaviours and legally apply human safety by human rights. Legal exact. Not scientific at all in any reference.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Depends on how you listen. The words are precise in detail but dont make sense. Which gets interpreted as a display of magic or a miracle because it is not understood how the words could happen.

It seems intentional in many ways.
Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. John


When the words are heard then the speech is able to be heard.

Thats when crazy bible stuff starts saying sense.
There are no miracles or magic involved. Miracles and magic is just a common interpretation of the words.

Umm, this just confirms what I said.

 

[paarsurrey]

Because English is the language that i speak.
How would a pattern language matter what language it is translated to as long as there is consistency with the translation?

What if the pattern language could be found throughout the world regardless of language spoken in the form of myths and fairytales.

The bible translation is ok but its not perfect. Its good enough to reach an understanding.



Its not hard to figure out Jonas is also known as Jonah.

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matthew.

But the word "fish" should not have been changed to whale.
Perhaps they just thought being in a whale made more sense.

" the heart of the earth "

And the heart of the earth is located, as per the whims of the NT translators, not deeper than the the tomb, one gets to know. The tomb of Joseph Arimathea where Yeshua was laid for treatment of the wounds , inflicted on his body on the Cross, treated by Nicodemus- the physician, till Yeshua gained enough strength to walk out of the tomb and was seen by his friends, as I understand. Right?

Regards

 

[WonderingWorrier]

" the heart of the earth "

And the heart of the earth is located, as per the whims of the NT translators, not deeper than the the tomb, one gets to know. The tomb of Joseph Arimathea where Yeshua was laid for treatment of the wounds , inflicted on his body on the Cross, treated by Nicodemus- the physician, till Yeshua gained enough strength to walk out of the tomb and was seen by his friends, as I understand. Right?

Regards

Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

I havent heard that one before. But I did read the article that you posted earlier which reminds me of what you are now saying.

"Was Jesus put in a tomb and three days later that tomb was found empty? Well, that's a historical question. And to answer it, it doesn't require any set of religious beliefs; you can simply look at the sources and draw some historical conclusions".
If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One? : NPR

Do you have sources to consider?


My understanding is that the bible contains a parallel language.


Like the open tomb being connected to bow and arrow:

"Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men." Jeremiah


Open tomb. Mighty man. Mighty wine:

Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. Psalm


Mighty Ephraim:
"And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord". Zechariah

Mighty Ephraim with a Bow.
The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. Psalm



Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Spear - Sword - Bow
Corn - Oil - Wine


In the city description there are three tribes in the East three gates. Joseph, Benjamin, and Dan.

"And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan".


Ephraim is of Joseph.
"For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim": Joshua


Ephraim as a rich man:
"And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin". Hosea



So I do think perhaps it is true what they say.
The open tomb is the tomb of the rich man. Joseph/Ephraim.


.

 

[paarsurrey]

Sounds like a reasonable explanation.

I havent heard that one before. But I did read the article that you posted earlier which reminds me of what you are now saying.

"Was Jesus put in a tomb and three days later that tomb was found empty? Well, that's a historical question. And to answer it, it doesn't require any set of religious beliefs; you can simply look at the sources and draw some historical conclusions".
If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One? : NPR

Do you have sources to consider?


My understanding is that the bible contains a parallel language.


Like the open tomb being connected to bow and arrow:

"Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the Lord: it is a mighty nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say. Their quiver is as an open sepulchre, they are all mighty men." Jeremiah


Open tomb. Mighty man. Mighty wine:

Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine. Psalm


Mighty Ephraim:
"And they of Ephraim shall be like a mighty man, and their heart shall rejoice as through wine: yea, their children shall see it, and be glad; their heart shall rejoice in the Lord". Zechariah

Mighty Ephraim with a Bow.
The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. Psalm



Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Spear - Sword - Bow
Corn - Oil - Wine


In the city description there are three tribes in the East three gates. Joseph, Benjamin, and Dan.

"And at the east side four thousand and five hundred: and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan".


Ephraim is of Joseph.
"For the children of Joseph were two tribes, Manasseh and Ephraim": Joshua


Ephraim as a rich man:
"And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin". Hosea



So I do think perhaps it is true what they say.
The open tomb is the tomb of the rich man. Joseph/Ephraim.


.

Isn't it stretching it too far and making it meaningless, please? Right?

Regards

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Isn't it stretching it too far and making it meaningless, please? Right?

Regards

It shows the meaning is being repeated.

Jesus was placed in the tomb of Joseph. The place of bows and arrows, and wine.

The tomb of Joseph Arimathea where Yeshua was laid for treatment of the wounds

You mentioned the tomb of Joseph Arimathea so I had a closer look.

Joseph of Arimathea - Wikipedia


The Arimathea part could also be investigated as possibly being an authentic addition.

Seems the Earthly location of Arimathea is unknown. But its interesting someone thought it was a city in Ephraim.
Arimathea - Wikipedia


Finding other words associated with Arimathea could help determine if it has a specific location on the map of the heavens.

Just like cities and nations of the Bible having specific positions on the map of the heavens.
The nations of the bible go into Israel the Zodiac wheel.

Ethiopia as an example. It goes in the place of sword (as in putting Ethiopians to the sword).
It goes in the place of the leopard. Leopard is in the place of sword.


And the leopard is with the goat.

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Spear - Sword - Bow
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Lion - Leopard - Wolf
Bear - Deer - Horse

Goats, leopards, and deer are three tribes in the west gates. Asher, Gad, and Naphtali.


Sheep are in the East gate and Goats are in the West gate.

"And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left". Matthew.

 

[Brian2]

So then, the God you worship changes his morality, based on what the people living at the time think about it?
What kind of God is that?

Weighing out the pros and cons of owning people as property?? I know that owning people as property is immoral. Why doesn't your God know that?

I would not say that God changes his morality based on what the people living at the time think about it. I would say that God demands only what people are able to give however. With something like slavery/indentured servitude there are pros and cons to it and the usual sceptical criticisms of the OT laws on slavery are not really according to the reality of the situation and the laws.
I recommend the following article if you are interested in a more real picture than is painted by most sceptics.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare | Berean Archive

When it comes to ownership, that is a term which shows the line of authority that existed and also shows responsibility towards in both directions. In ancient Israel a child is considered the property of the parent, and really in our society the same relationship is seen even though it is not put in those terms, but a parent has a certain authority of the child and responsibility to the child and visa versa.
But really you do not know that ownership of a person is immoral. That is just an opinion based on modern perception and without a God to tell us what is right and wrong we only have opinions.

 

[Brian2]

Do you think slavery is moral? I mean, you're actually sitting here telling me that owning people as property can be beneficial to society. And that the God you worship didn't think it was important enough or immoral enough to outlaw it, like he did with murder, wearing clothing of mixed fabrics or eating shellfish? For real? You've lost your moral compass, my friend.

Slavery as practiced in the USA was not moral. The stealing of people and selling them as slaves for a start is condemned in both the OT and NT.
This sort of slavery does exist no doubt in the world today. But of course there are other forms of slavery that we get ourselves into through debt when we are slaves to work to pay back our debts. This is practiced differently than in the past and we can go from employer to employer (if that is possible), but our slavery to the one we owe money to is nonetheless real and accepted in our society. It is not seen as slavery and the servitude in ancient Israel should on the main not be seen as the sort of slavery we object to because of the laws in place in the Bible to protect those in such servitude.

 

[Brian2]

You are now arguing for relative morality.

You were answering post 133.
I was not arguing moral relativism, I was arguing what God would allow, not what God saw as His absolutes.
Slavery did have it's pros and cons and in the OT God tried to lay out the relationship between slave/servant and master in the Law. The following article is recommended and clears up certain of the usual sceptic criticisms to slavery in the OT.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare | Berean Archive

 

[Brian2]

Jewish Messiah is altogether a different personage than the Hellenist Christ (a dying rising deity), I understand, please. Right?
So kindly don't mix them for clarity purposes, please. Right?

Regards
Regards

Jesus did say that He would die and rise again and give His life as a ransom for many and be the saviour.
The Jews deny that the Messiah would do such things but it is in the OT even if they cannot see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Slavery as practiced in the USA was not moral. The stealing of people and selling them as slaves for a start is condemned in both the OT and NT.
This sort of slavery does exist no doubt in the world today. But of course there are other forms of slavery that we get ourselves into through debt when we are slaves to work to pay back our debts. This is practiced differently than in the past and we can go from employer to employer (if that is possible), but our slavery to the one we owe money to is nonetheless real and accepted in our society. It is not seen as slavery and the servitude in ancient Israel should on the main not be seen as the sort of slavery we object to because of the laws in place in the Bible to protect those in such servitude.

I don't find indentured servitude particularly moral either. But that's not what we're engaging in when we choose where we want to work and for how much and we can freely leave our job whenever we want or need to. To compare completing work for wages to slavery or indentured servitude is to completely whitewash of what is depicted in the Bible (chattel slavery).

I see you have a problem with the kind of slavery that was practiced in the South, where slaves were stolen from their homes and captured and kept and sold as property. I'm sorry to tell you, but that is the slavery endorsed in the Bible. God supposedly tells us, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45). So you agree that is not moral?


And honestly, I'm really tired of people trying to downplay what is obviously chattel slavery as just the same thing as working at a job for money. It isn't. The Bible talks about obtaining slaves from the nations around you like chattel, explains how a slave belongs to you and can be passed down to your children like chattel, how you can beat a slave as long as they don't die within a few days, etc. That is chattel slavery. I object to that. And I say a supposed omniscient, omnipresent, loving deity should know better. And humans should too and should stop trying to defend bronze age customs just because they're in the Bible.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I would not say that God changes his morality based on what the people living at the time think about it.

How can you possibly say that? How many slaves do you own then?

I would say that God demands only what people are able to give however. With something like slavery/indentured servitude there are pros and cons to it and the usual sceptical criticisms of the OT laws on slavery are not really according to the reality of the situation and the laws.

There are pros to slavery? Over say, not having slavery? What are those, and who is the supposed beneficiary?

I recommend the following article if you are interested in a more real picture than is painted by most sceptics.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare | Berean Archive

Sorry but I'm not interested in apologetics.

What "more real" picture do I need than what is explained in the Bible? And let's be clear, what is explained in the Bible is chattel slavery - owning human beings as property.

What you're telling me is that there is some context in which owning human beings as property can be viewed as moral?

When it comes to ownership, that is a term which shows the line of authority that existed and also shows responsibility towards in both directions. In ancient Israel a child is considered the property of the parent, and really in our society the same relationship is seen even though it is not put in those terms, but a parent has a certain authority of the child and responsibility to the child and visa versa.

This is just more attempts at whitewashing slavery as described in the Bible.

But really you do not know that ownership of a person is immoral. That is just an opinion based on modern perception and without a God to tell us what is right and wrong we only have opinions.

Yes, I do know that owning human beings as property is immoral. It's a shame that you and your God don't. But thanks for helping illustrate one of the big problems I have with religion.

Why do you need an invisible authority figure to tell you whether something is wrong or not based on "his" own personal opinions? Especially one that seems to have a very poor and very outdated moral compass? When did this God ever updated "his" views on slavery" to better reflect the times? Oh, never.

 

[Brian2]

I don't find indentured servitude particularly moral either. But that's not what we're engaging in when we choose where we want to work and for how much and we can freely leave our job whenever we want or need to. To compare completing work for wages to slavery or indentured servitude is to completely whitewash of what is depicted in the Bible (chattel slavery).

Even the slaves bought from the surrounding nations and foreigners in the land of Israel were not chattel slaves and had rights under the law.

I see you have a problem with the kind of slavery that was practiced in the South, where slaves were stolen from their homes and captured and kept and sold as property. I'm sorry to tell you, but that is the slavery endorsed in the Bible. God supposedly tells us, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45). So you agree that is not moral?

Stealing people and forcing them into slavery is immoral. Buying slaves in the economy of the day where the poor sold themselves as slaves was permissible and there was a difference in the laws they were under compared to those of Israelite slaves. The alien slaves could be property for life.

And honestly, I'm really tired of people trying to downplay what is obviously chattel slavery as just the same thing as working at a job for money. It isn't. The Bible talks about obtaining slaves from the nations around you like chattel, explains how a slave belongs to you and can be passed down to your children like chattel, how you can beat a slave as long as they don't die within a few days, etc. That is chattel slavery. I object to that. And I say a supposed omniscient, omnipresent, loving deity should know better. And humans should too and should stop trying to defend bronze age customs just because they're in the Bible.

I'm tired of people trying to make slavery in Israel look worse than it was and saying things like the aliens slaves did not have any rights (chattel) and the females were sex slaves.
Slavery is not the best way to have a social security system and protect the poor but at that time in history it seems to have been the best way.

 

[ppp]

You were answering post 133.
I was not arguing moral relativism, I was arguing what God would allow, not what God saw as His absolutes.

You were and are arguing that slavery was moral in their society while being immoral in ours. That.is quite literally relative morality.

Slavery did have it's pros and cons and in the OT God tried to lay out the relationship between slave/servant and master in the Law. The following article is recommended and clears up certain of the usual sceptic criticisms to slavery in the OT.
Ancient Israel: Slavery, Servanthood, and Social Welfare | Berean Archive

This is just an argument that slavery had utility. You can argue for the utility of anything from slavery to cannibalism to rape culture to fascism to kleptocracies. All of these have been part of the social structure of thriving societies. Unless you are claiming that a social structure or institution is moral because it has utility, that link is irrelevant.

• Slavery is immoral.
• God could have chosen to encode laws for a thriving non slave society, but he chose not to.
• Therefore, God is immoral

.

 

[Brian2]

How can you possibly say that? How many slaves do you own then?

The laws were in place to protect the slaves but these days the laws are in place to stop slavery and the poor are given a hand out and not expected to do anything for it. A better system only in some ways.

There are pros to slavery? Over say, not having slavery? What are those, and who is the supposed beneficiary?

Sorry but I'm not interested in apologetics.

What "more real" picture do I need than what is explained in the Bible? And let's be clear, what is explained in the Bible is chattel slavery - owning human beings as property.

What you're telling me is that there is some context in which owning human beings as property can be viewed as moral?

You ask about the pros and cons and who is the supposed beneficiary, and say that what is explained in the Bible is the real picture, but you are not interested in reading an article about what the Bible actually tells us.

Yes, I do know that owning human beings as property is immoral. It's a shame that you and your God don't. But thanks for helping illustrate one of the big problems I have with religion.

Why do you need an invisible authority figure to tell you whether something is wrong or not based on "his" own personal opinions? Especially one that seems to have a very poor and very outdated moral compass? When did this God ever updated "his" views on slavery" to better reflect the times? Oh, never.

All you have is your opinion of right and wrong as a 21st century Western person who seems to know right and wrong for societies 2-4 thousand years ago.
So if people were not allowed to sell themselves into servitude then the poor class would have grown in Israel as it is growing these days and the Government would not have been able to care for them. God did make provisions in the law for the poor and made them a priority amongst the Jews in the Law. But I guess you're not really interested about that, only in attacking the Bible from a surface reading and imagination, no doubt fuelled by what sceptic apologetic sites say.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Even the slaves bought from the surrounding nations and foreigners in the land of Israel were not chattel slaves and had rights under the law.

They are chattel slaves. They are described exactly as chattel slaves.

Stealing people and forcing them into slavery is immoral. Buying slaves in the economy of the day where the poor sold themselves as slaves was permissible and there was a difference in the laws they were under compared to those of Israelite slaves. The alien slaves could be property for life.

Which is exactly what the people in the Bible were advised to do. So I'm glad you agree that the slavery described in the Bible is immoral.

Yes, the Jewish slaves were treated slightly better than the non-Jewish ones. How moral!

I'm tired of people trying to make slavery in Israel look worse than it was and saying things like the aliens slaves did not have any rights (chattel) and the females were sex slaves.
Slavery is not the best way to have a social security system and protect the poor but at that time in history it seems to have been the best way.

All one needs to know how bad and immoral slavery is in the Bible is to read the words God supposedly told his people about how to treat human beings as property.

So this is where we're at. The all-knowing, all-seeing, loving creator of the universe, who took the time to declare 600+ commandments to his people, outlawing homosexuality, and shellfish and clothing of mixed fabrics just couldn't be bothered to throw in a commandment against owning human beings as property because well, it was necessary at the time or something. So this God's morality does change in different times and different contexts. Which is where we started - with you telling me that it doesn't.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The laws were in place to protect the slaves but these days the laws are in place to stop slavery and the poor are given a hand out and not expected to do anything for it. A better system only in some ways.

Did you just suggest that slavery may be useful in today's society?

You ask about the pros and cons and who is the supposed beneficiary, and say that what is explained in the Bible is the real picture, but you are not interested in reading an article about what the Bible actually tells us.

What I am interested in is what the Bible actually says. Not some twisted apologetics version of it, meant to whitewash what it actually says.

All you have is your opinion of right and wrong as a 21st century Western person who seems to know right and wrong for societies 2-4 thousand years ago.
So if people were not allowed to sell themselves into servitude then the poor class would have grown in Israel as it is growing these days and the Government would not have been able to care for them. God did make provisions in the law for the poor and made them a priority amongst the Jews in the Law. But I guess you're not really interested about that, only in attacking the Bible from a surface reading and imagination, no doubt fuelled by what sceptic apologetic sites say.

Perhaps God should have made some commandments about the Government having to care for the poorest and neediest in society while still allowing them to be free human beings. Nah, couldn't be bothered with that. Turn them into property instead. It's just so obvious to me that this stuff didn't come from any God(s) - not a loving and all-powerful one anyway. Rather, it came from people who didn't know any better at the time.

I have a question that should clear this up ...

Do you think poor and needy people living today would be best served by "signing up" for slavery?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

It says in the Bible that we will be judged according to our ways.

And that is what it is doing. The words are turning our ways into positions of judgement.

Speaking in both good and evil.

According to our ways:
Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee, and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations. Ezekiel.


People cant hear the words of the prophets. They do not understand the sword in the Bible.

In vain have I smitten your children; they received no correction: your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion. Jeremiah.



To understand the sword is to understand peace.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. Matthew


Peace is the middle way.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Spear - Sword - Bow
Grain - Olive - Grape.
Bread - Oil - Wine

The sword is the olive branch.
A symbol of peace.