Scientific evidence and Bible prophecies.

[Brian2]

No. Once again, if a God can make rules about fashion he can surely make rule banning slavery.

He could have but didn't. His laws are for good reasons however, even if it is sometimes hard to see that reason, especially from this distance in history.
I don't think that there were laws to do with fashion. The reasons would not be about that.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

if a God can make rules about fashion

Would you consider the red (scarlet), the purple, and the blue?

And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses. Exodus

As colours having purpose.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue


As the red sea:

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Sea - River - Stream

But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea. Deuteronomy.



As the red heifer:

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep

This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke: Numbers.


The red that is associated with dung:
They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. Lamentations


Do people not understand the eating of man dung?

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. Ezekiel.

Which suddenly changed to cattle dung:
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Ezekiel.


Do they not see themselves as either cattle, goats, or sheep?

Do they not see themselves as either red, purple, or blue?
Do they not see themselves as either brass, silver, or gold?




Consider this verse that does not mention red and does not mention brass:

Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. Jeremiah.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Brass - Silver - Gold

Considering the red, purple, and blue.
I can see purple as a combination of red and blue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you consider the red (scarlet), the purple, and the blue?

And of the blue, and purple, and scarlet, they made cloths of service, to do service in the holy place, and made the holy garments for Aaron; as the Lord commanded Moses. Exodus

As colours having purpose.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue


As the red sea:

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Sea - River - Stream

But as for you, turn you, and take your journey into the wilderness by the way of the Red sea. Deuteronomy.



As the red heifer:

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Cattle - Goat - Sheep

This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke: Numbers.


The red that is associated with dung:
They that did feed delicately are desolate in the streets: they that were brought up in scarlet embrace dunghills. Lamentations


Do people not understand the eating of man dung?

And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. Ezekiel.

Which suddenly changed to cattle dung:
Then he said unto me, Lo, I have given thee cow's dung for man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread therewith. Ezekiel.


Do they not see themselves as either cattle, goats, or sheep?

Do they not see themselves as either red, purple, or blue?
Do they not see themselves as either brass, silver, or gold?




Consider this verse that does not mention red and does not mention brass:

Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the work of cunning men. Jeremiah.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Red - Purple - Blue
Brass - Silver - Gold

Considering the red, purple, and blue.
I can see purple as a combination of red and blue.

Why are you quoting nonsense from the Bible?

 

[rational experiences]

In human life... machines don't exist. They are chosen. Physical activity by labour of humans digs up earths mass. Then humans choose to convert exactly by choice only.

Hence as we live in the same human life supported heavens no predictions of science was as a future. Doesn't exist a science future.

Instead we expect change by one purpose only. No science practice. A future. Natural cooling evolution.

Stating heavens expected by humans to change in the future was a healing.

Therefore a prediction was cosmic only.

So you ask any human how could you predict a falling star returning cosmic future unless science had been involved.

The basic advice asteroid star wandering past. Notated.

Compared to earth space heated causes of a falling in wandering star.

Which only a machine nuclear change of cold heavens gases by earth mass burn out converting would have caused.

As earths heavens gases aren't comparable to earths cold mass.

Basic advice to humans.

We bio life live within heavens it doesn't belong to machine science.

If men taught truth we begin as human life a man a woman.

Woman's body sealed to her womb.

Man wanted to by his thinking to co join his body with a woman's.

So he begins his thinking relating to comparing human bodies and also a projection of his sexual activity to cause change.

To a human woman.

Then his mind is changed by stars fall. He thinks about it. Science is born in his mind.

You can then begin to realise how he lost conscious pathways to a man and woman's natural relationship in life human.

As a thinker. As it truly makes no sense to name space as space. Then say space is a womb. Unless he realised the star had penetrated our atmosphere.

Proving he compared human information unnaturally.

Giving his bio body hurt claim of minds sexuality to the human woman's Blame. Not the star.

How it began..a changed man's mind into his science mind.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The ownership came with benefits for the owner and responsibilities of the owner. The owner did not want to lose his possession or harm it so it would not be productive.
But yes, ownership as viewed from our perspective, seems over the top. But in those days it may have been the best legal structure to use.

Notice how you didn't address my point at all? How come the all-knowing all-seeing all-loving creator of the universe didn't seem to know that owning human beings as property is immoral? The same God who had no problem making all kinds of other commandments, who had no problem telling us how bad it is to eat shell fish or wear clothing of mixed fabrics, couldn't be bothered to tell us that owning people as property is immoral. Or maybe this God doesn't even think it's immoral at all.

And look at the way you just talk about this ... Well a slave owner wouldn't want to hurt his property so he probably wouldn't have caused his slaves too much harm. We're talking about people as property as though it's moral in any way, shape or form. And you're defending it. Why? Because the Bible says it's okay. Ancient goat herders thought it was alright. Come on, man. Where's your moral compass?

 

[SkepticThinker]

My guess is that slavery at the time was beneficial. Just as God allowed divorce, which was not His perfect will for His people, He understood that the people would not be able to follow a strict no divorce rule so the next best thing was to make rules around it, as with slavery.
In both cases there were benefits also no doubt. With divorce it probably stopped a lot of domestic violence and with slavery it was beneficial for the economy and the social security of the slaves.

Oh come on. God didn't think people would be able to follow a commandment saying not to own people as property so he just let them do an immoral thing anyway?
The same God who had no problem giving like 600 commandments about trivial things like not eating shellfish, and important things like not murdering people? This God just thought, well they're going to want to own each other as property anyway so I'll just make some handy-dandy rules about how much you can abuse them and stuff.

If you really believe this, I would submit that you have sacrificed your moral compass in order to defend the Bible at seemingly all costs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He could have but didn't. His laws are for good reasons however, even if it is sometimes hard to see that reason, especially from this distance in history.

"His' reasons sound rather arbitrary to me.

How do you know these laws are "for good reason?" You think there are good reasons to own other human beings as property?

I don't think that there were laws to do with fashion. The reasons would not be about that.

Oh?

19 “You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.
-Leviticus 19:19

 

[rational experiences]

The theme by man said numbers don't exist.

Words don't exist they are only thought. By humans as humans.

But my words are holier than numbers that came out of the wilderness.

Zero space was his calculus before numbers.

Which in reality just a big lie.

Numbers did not exist until he converted first was his man teaching.

First is imposed where a man converted.

So his natural brother hurt said there is no such thing as a minus number.

As you equated nothing yourself a sin hole...sink hole. In the rock of God sealed in space.

As water is free and was freed out of stone.

As it was never the body stone.

So numbers equated nothing first zero when mass wasn't any zero. Ended naturally as nothing zero. When he did conversion.

As equals says he gives the answer first as he is naturally aware of intentions....then his calculus gave him the equals answer nothing.

In machines it ended where he told it to by unnatural manipulation. How he said a minus number existed just in man's science.

Sealed was by space pressure by law and water by law was created in space sealed pressures and was never science owned. God.

As it was held to rock said men by freeze first historic.

My natural brother had to argue science as science was always evil and wrong said intelligent men.

Why science said science is wrong. It was never right. As design is by a human man not a human god.

Why egotism and self idolisation were caused by the men of science. How it came to be in life. Nothing like our spiritual human father who held his born baby daughter in his arms and just loved her. Just as he had loved mother. Purely.

 

[rational experiences]

Father also said men in science tried to theory waters destruction.

As it had been caused to manifest in space.

We only live by the law waters presence.

It's why science said I can convert salt water to fresh water only.

And it's why the presence of salt by mass in water as used by a theist displaces biological garden nature animal nature human nature.

When three different types of water mass exists.

Ours as stretched thinned oxygenated water.

Mass fresh water bio life.

Mass of salt water bio life.

Father said science was known to speak by human contrivances as its not just data. As data by itself owns nothing as no thing.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Why are you quoting nonsense from the Bible?

Because quotes are evidence that it does in fact make sense.
Im trying to show you how prophecies happen through prophets word structure.
To a skeptical thinker as myself I have found their words are in fact true in their own way.


Like does this prophecy sound like nonsense to you?

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.



I could show you it does make sense and how it makes sense.
Perhaps you are not aware that the mighty wind has made figs and stars into the same thing.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Stars - Sun

Would you like to see evidence to consider?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because quotes are evidence that it does in fact make sense.
Im trying to show you how prophecies happen through prophets word structure.
To a skeptical thinker as myself I have found their words are in fact true in their own way.

No, because then you also have to accept the quotes and stories that you tell you it is false. What you are doing is merely looking for an excuse to put your own interpretation into the Bible. It is called exegesis.

Like does this prophecy sound like nonsense to you?

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.

First off there is not context. That automatically makes it nonsense.

I could show you it does make sense and how it makes sense.
Perhaps you are not aware that the mighty wind has made figs and stars into the same thing.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Stars - Sun

Would you like to see evidence to consider?

No, you are just applying your own very subjective and flawed interpretation on it. It is not evidence. It does not even look like a prophecy since you removed all context.

 

[rational experiences]

Because quotes are evidence that it does in fact make sense.
Im trying to show you how prophecies happen through prophets word structure.
To a skeptical thinker as myself I have found their words are in fact true in their own way.


Like does this prophecy sound like nonsense to you?

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.



I could show you it does make sense and how it makes sense.
Perhaps you are not aware that the mighty wind has made figs and stars into the same thing.

Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Stars - Sun

Would you like to see evidence to consider?

Cosmic.

Laws in cosmic.

Earths life safety with God is first.

O big planet asteroid stars. Get ignited. Wander.

Safety...they blow up in space as mass scatter. Cosmic law position.

Not coming to earth. Information falsified.

 

[Brian2]

Notice how you didn't address my point at all? How come the all-knowing all-seeing all-loving creator of the universe didn't seem to know that owning human beings as property is immoral? The same God who had no problem making all kinds of other commandments, who had no problem telling us how bad it is to eat shell fish or wear clothing of mixed fabrics, couldn't be bothered to tell us that owning people as property is immoral. Or maybe this God doesn't even think it's immoral at all.

I imagine that ownership could have been the best or even only way to go about the relationship at that time. in a legal sense.

And look at the way you just talk about this ... Well a slave owner wouldn't want to hurt his property so he probably wouldn't have caused his slaves too much harm. We're talking about people as property as though it's moral in any way, shape or form. And you're defending it. Why? Because the Bible says it's okay. Ancient goat herders thought it was alright. Come on, man. Where's your moral compass?

I try to see the possible pros in the situation and you see the cons,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which of course is the moral high ground, but also making a facile judgement according to what we accept or not these days, and calling that absolute in a moral sense.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

No, because then you also have to accept the quotes and stories that you tell you it is false. What you are doing is merely looking for an excuse to put your own interpretation into the Bible. It is called exegesis.



First off there is not context. That automatically makes it nonsense.


No, you are just applying your own very subjective and flawed interpretation on it. It is not evidence. It does not even look like a prophecy since you removed all context.

What use is context if people cant hear the words?

We could use the context of the whole bible to try to hear the words.

Do you know what a fig is?
Do you know what a star is?
Do you know what mighty is?


Consider the words as symbolic. The words are symbols.
And the symbols have positions. Twelve positions.
Some symbols represent the four directions so three positions from one direction can share a common symbol.

That is how prophecy works. Word placement. Its not a prediction of a future event that could be twisted into all sorts of meanings and explained by magic.

Mighty is a word from the top level.

Should we begin with text analysis of the word mighty?
Use a bible word search.

What words are associated with mighty in the bible?

Is it corn, or oil, or is it wine?
Is it spear, or sword, or is it bow?

Which word group could mighty fit?

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


Consider the mighty word. There are three mighty tribes in a single group from one direction which shows what direction the mighty wind comes from.

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. Jeremiah.

What I think we are looking at is a Zodiac wheel language.

 

[Brian2]

Oh come on. God didn't think people would be able to follow a commandment saying not to own people as property so he just let them do an immoral thing anyway?
The same God who had no problem giving like 600 commandments about trivial things like not eating shellfish, and important things like not murdering people? This God just thought, well they're going to want to own each other as property anyway so I'll just make some handy-dandy rules about how much you can abuse them and stuff.

If you really believe this, I would submit that you have sacrificed your moral compass in order to defend the Bible at seemingly all costs.

It may not have been that God thought that the people would do it anyway, that is just something I thought might be the case.
But of course there is the social security benefits of slavery and the economic benefits.
Certainly slavery was going to happen in a culture where slavery was rampant, so laws to safeguard the slaves and masters were needed.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I imagine that ownership could have been the best or even only way to go about the relationship at that time. in a legal sense.

You ignored the point, again.

I try to see the possible pros in the situation and you see the cons,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which of course is the moral high ground, but also making a facile judgement according to what we accept or not these days, and calling that absolute in a moral sense.

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?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It may not have been that God thought that the people would do it anyway, that is just something I thought might be the case.
But of course there is the social security benefits of slavery and the economic benefits.
Certainly slavery was going to happen in a culture where slavery was rampant, so laws to safeguard the slaves and masters were needed.

Oh so God thought they'd keep slaves anyway, regardless of what he had to say about it, so he just let them do it? Are you kidding me?
The same God who gave upwards of 600 commandments and dictates to follow, just noticed that people were going to own people as property anyway, so he decided to just go with it? The same God who commands that you believe in him and do what he says or face eternity in hell?

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.

 

[ppp]

I imagine that ownership could have been the best or even only way to go about the relationship at that time. in a legal sense.



I try to see the possible pros in the situation and you see the cons,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which of course is the moral high ground, but also making a facile judgement according to what we accept or not these days, and calling that absolute in a moral sense.

You are now arguing for relative morality.

 

[paarsurrey]

I did not say that Jesus was not God, I said that the resurrection does not prove that He is God.
But you are right that if Jesus did not die a cursed death on the cross then He did not rise from the dead after that death.
The OT does tell us however that the Messiah would die in atonement for sins and rise to life again.
False prophets often deny that and deny that Jesus died and rose again and people believe them instead of what the Bible tells us.

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

 

[WonderingWorrier]

First off there is not context. That automatically makes it nonsense.

I have suggested a closer look at the word mighty. Have you had a look yet?
We could talk about it and go into more details. Then we could have a closer look at the word star.



Like consider the moon, stars, and sun as a group of three words:

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Luke


And spear, sword, and bow as another group of three words.

Therefore set I in the lower places behind the wall, and on the higher places, I even set the people after their families with their swords, their spears, and their bows. Nehemiah.






Now consider this prophecy:

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear. Habakkuk.




It has two words from each group. It is missing one word from each group.

The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear.


Group1 - Group2 - Group3
Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow



Thought maybe it could help you understand the stars being as figs.

And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.


By showing you that star is also sword.