The Big Bang!! A Big JOKE!! and its not science...

[malachigreenidge]

Here is the dictionary definition of science...

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Alright, so to all you evolutionists out there, I have some questions for you, since I am always under attack for my beliefs, its time for you guys to defend yours...if you dare!

This is straight out of a highschool textbook. Classic!
"Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

This is by far the DUMBEST thing I have ever read in my life. I laughed at it back then, and I laugh even still today. You actually believe this? That our infinite universe and all matter started as a microscopic dot??? LOLOLOLOL!!!!:lol:

So here is my first beef. This theory, the big bang, which is the root of your whole belief system, is not "scientific" even by the very definition of Science. It is not testable. It is not observable. Nor does it follow (any of) the general rules of science. (ie: 2nd law of Thermodynamics) So why do you guys call it science???

Where did the dot come from?
What caused it to start spinning?
What caused it to spin faster and faster?
What caused it to explode?
Where did the energy come from?
What force was holding all of that matter and energy inside that teeny, weeny, widdle dot???

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Here is the dictionary definition of science...

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Alright, so to all you evolutionists out there, I have some questions for you, since I am always under attack for my beliefs, its time for you guys to defend yours...if you dare!

This is straight out of a highschool textbook. Classic!
"Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

This is by far the DUMBEST thing I have ever read in my life. I laughed at it back then, and I laugh even still today. You actually believe this? That our infinite universe and all matter started as a microscopic dot??? LOLOLOLOL!!!!:lol:

So here is my first beef. This theory, the big bang, which is the root of your whole belief system, is not "scientific" even by the very definition of Science. It is not testable. It is not observable. Nor does it follow (any of) the general rules of science. (ie: 2nd law of Thermodynamics) So why do you guys call it science???

Where did the dot come from?
What caused it to start spinning?
What caused it to spin faster and faster?
What caused it to explode?
Where did the energy come from?
What force was holding all of that matter and energy inside that teeny, weeny, widdle dot???
Hey there Malachi,

Your post is a perfect example of how religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers since you have chosen to believe and propagate ludicrous lies. Your assertion that the quote (highlighted red) came from a "highschool textbook" is total bullshit. It came from an idiotic page called The Big Bang and the Bible (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html). This was easy to discover. I started by searching for all occurrences of the ludicrous assertion that "This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded". I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and I've never once seen a textbook. let alone a real scientist, say anything like that. It is moronic. Stupid beyond words. The product of total ignorance. So there is good reason to think it came from a Bible believer. And that suspicion was quickly proven true. Google returns 881 results when I search for that exact phrase (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+ it+exploded%22&biw=1469&bih=751&sa=X&ei=ka6FUpf1M4LQyAHbr4D4Dg&ved=0CBwQpwUoBjgK&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2001%2Ccd_max%3A2005&tbm=#q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+it +exploded%22&tbas=0) (in quotes). Most of the hits were just quotes from the The Big Bang and the Bible (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html) page and not one of them that I saw gave any source other than that page. So I began to suspect that the quote originated on that page. So I modified my Google search to the time period from 2001 - 2005 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+ it+exploded%22&tbas=0&biw=1469&bih=751&sa=X&ei=erKFUq_EDInkyAHY9YHgAQ&ved=0CBwQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2001%2Ccd_max%3A2005&tbm=), and TADA! There was one and only one hit - that stinking bullshit Bible page! That is the source of your freaking LIES. But you don't care, do you? You think that you are a lover of Christ? You would do well to understand that from a Christian perspective, you piss on Christ when you piss on truth.

Enjoy your "LOLOLOLOL" .... :doh:

[malachigreenidge]

Hey there Malachi,

Your post is a perfect example of how religion corrupts the minds and morals of believers since you have chosen to believe and propagate ludicrous lies. Your assertion that the quote (highlighted red) came from a "highschool textbook" is total bullshit. It came from an idiotic page called The Big Bang and the Bible (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html). This was easy to discover. I started by searching for all occurrences of the ludicrous assertion that "This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded". I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and I've never once seen a textbook. let alone a real scientist, say anything like that. It is moronic. Stupid beyond words. The product of total ignorance. So there is good reason to think it came from a Bible believer. And that suspicion was quickly proven true. Google returns 881 results when I search for that exact phrase (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+ it+exploded%22&biw=1469&bih=751&sa=X&ei=ka6FUpf1M4LQyAHbr4D4Dg&ved=0CBwQpwUoBjgK&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2001%2Ccd_max%3A2005&tbm=#q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+it +exploded%22&tbas=0) (in quotes). Most of the hits were just quotes from the The Big Bang and the Bible (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/bigbang.html) page and not one of them that I saw gave any source other than that page. So I began to suspect that the quote originated on that page. So I modified my Google search to the time period from 2001 - 2005 (https://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+dot+spun+faster+and+faster+until+ it+exploded%22&tbas=0&biw=1469&bih=751&sa=X&ei=erKFUq_EDInkyAHY9YHgAQ&ved=0CBwQpwUoBg&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2001%2Ccd_max%3A2005&tbm=), and TADA! There was one and only one hit - that stinking bullshit Bible page! That is the source of your freaking LIES. But you don't care, do you? You think that you are a lover of Christ? You would do well to understand that from a Christian perspective, you piss on Christ when you piss on truth.

Enjoy your "LOLOLOLOL" .... :doh:

Oh Richard, is google your internet god??? Here is the textbook and the "exact" quote from page 61, order one if you don't believe me, or if google search is still failing you, just like your laughable theory...

Here is also a post from an article titled "The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist"(2007)written by astro-physicist Eric Lyons, referencing the exact same textbook!

"No topic is more fundamental in the creation/evolution debate than the origin of the Universe. The theory advanced by evolutionists for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. It has circulated via science textbooks all over the world. One of the leading publishers of science curriculum for many years has been Prentice Hall. In their 1992 General Science textbook, titled A Voyage of Discovery, they included the following section on “The Birth and Death of the Universe:”

(Now Eric goes on to quote from the textbook himself)

]"How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang. One result of the big bang was the formation of galaxies, all racing away from one another. This explains why the universe is still expanding[/COLOR](Hurd, et al., p. 61, emp. in orig.)."

Here is the reference, google it if you dare! There's a nice picture of it on Abe Books, where you can order your very own copy! Just click on this link: http://www.abebooks.com/General-Science-A-Voyage-Discovery-Dean-Hurd/835197802/bd

General Science-A Voyage Of Discovery
Dean Hurd, Et al.
Published by Prentice Hall, 1992
ISBN 10: 0137179928 / ISBN 13: 9780137179923
Used / Hardcover / Quantity Available: 1
From Bookworksonline (Fairfield Glade, TN, U.S.A.)

There you go, clearly from the textbook! Now that that is settled, can you please anwer my questions?

Where did the dot come from?
What caused it to start spinning?
What caused it to spin faster and faster?
What caused it to explode?
Where did the energy come from?
What force was holding all of that matter and energy inside that teeny, weeny, widdle dot???

If on the other hand, you still neglect these notions that are clearly taught in this textbook, and find them false, (I am assuming you will, as their is no possible explanation for any of these questions, from evolution), then please answer my first question.

So here is my first beef. This theory, the big bang, which is the root of your whole belief system, is not "scientific" even by the very definition of Science. It is not testable. It is not observable. Nor does it follow (any of) the general rules of science. (ie: 2nd law of Thermodynamics) So why do you guys call it science???

Readers, it should be noted that Richard has not answered (or even attempted to) answer any of my direct rebuttal's to his posts, from posts #64 or #66, or #149. So I don't imagine he'll answer this one either. Any of you can pipe up though, please, lets see what you got!!

...and yes Richard, I am very much enjoying my LOLOLOLOLOL!!

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Oh Richard, is google your internet god??? Here is the textbook and the "exact" quote from page 61, order one if you don't believe me, or if google search is still failing you, just like your laughable theory...

Here is also a post from an article titled "The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist"(2007)written by astro-physicist Eric Lyons, referencing the exact same textbook!

"No topic is more fundamental in the creation/evolution debate than the origin of the Universe. The theory advanced by evolutionists for several decades now, which supposedly best explains our existence from a purely naturalistic perspective, is known as the Big Bang. It has circulated via science textbooks all over the world. One of the leading publishers of science curriculum for many years has been Prentice Hall. In their 1992 General Science textbook, titled A Voyage of Discovery, they included the following section on “The Birth and Death of the Universe:”

(Now Eric goes on to quote from the textbook himself)

]"How was the universe born and how will it end? Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded. This explosion is called the big bang. One result of the big bang was the formation of galaxies, all racing away from one another. This explains why the universe is still expanding[/COLOR](Hurd, et al., p. 61, emp. in orig.)."

Here is the reference, google it if you dare! There's a nice picture of it on Abe Books, where you can order your very own copy! Just click on this link: http://www.abebooks.com/General-Science-A-Voyage-Discovery-Dean-Hurd/835197802/bd

General Science-A Voyage Of Discovery
Dean Hurd, Et al.
Published by Prentice Hall, 1992
ISBN 10: 0137179928 / ISBN 13: 9780137179923
Used / Hardcover / Quantity Available: 1
From Bookworksonline (Fairfield Glade, TN, U.S.A.)

There you go, clearly from the textbook! Now that that is settled, can you please anwer my questions?

Where did the dot come from?
What caused it to start spinning?
What caused it to spin faster and faster?
What caused it to explode?
Where did the energy come from?
What force was holding all of that matter and energy inside that teeny, weeny, widdle dot???


Hey there Malachi,

Are you totally insane, utterly idiotic, or are you just pretending to be both? The quote that you said was "exact" is not exact at all. It doesn't mention any "dot" that began "spinning."

Quote #1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

Quote #2: Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.

You say that quote #1 is exactly the same as quote #2? :doh:

Therefore, there is no need to answer you question about "spinning" because you have not shown that any scientists have ever said anything about a "spinning dot" in relation to the Big Bang.

And worse - it is utterly moronic for you to think you could refute astrophysics by misquoting a few sentences of a poorly written and entirely inaccurate description in a high school textbook! You have to deal with what the scientists actually have said.

I can't believe how much error and falsehood is contained in your post. You say that Eric Lyons is an astrophysicist? Where did you get that idea? Here is what he says about himself (http://www.apologeticspress.org/el.aspx) (you can find this by clicking on his name on the The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2194)):
Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.

Eric has authored or co-authored a number of books, including The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Volumes 1 & 2), Behold! The Lamb of God, Truth Be Told, and Wonders of God's Creation. In addition, he writes weekly for the Apologetics Press Web site, is editor of the Explorer Series, and assistant editor of Discovery, the monthly magazine on Scripture and science for children published by Apologetics Press. Eric speaks frequently at youth rallies, Gospel meetings, and seminars around the country, and specializes in presenting seminars on the following topics:
He is a typical ignorant, corrupt, lying, Christian apologist who doesn't give a shit about the truth any more than you do! The crap you have written in this one thread is all the proof anyone needs to know that you despise and mock the truth. You are a perfect example of how your religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. It is simply INSANE to think you could refute the General Theory of Relativity by misquoting a few sentences from a poorly written highschool textbook.



If on the other hand, you still neglect these notions that are clearly taught in this textbook, and find them false, (I am assuming you will, as their is no possible explanation for any of these questions, from evolution), then please answer my first question.

So here is my first beef. This theory, the big bang, which is the root of your whole belief system, is not "scientific" even by the very definition of Science. It is not testable. It is not observable. Nor does it follow (any of) the general rules of science. (ie: 2nd law of Thermodynamics) So why do you guys call it science???

Readers, it should be noted that Richard has not answered (or even attempted to) answer any of my direct rebuttal's to his posts, from posts #64 or #66, or #149. So I don't imagine he'll answer this one either. Any of you can pipe up though, please, lets see what you got!!

...and yes Richard, I am very much enjoying my LOLOLOLOLOL!!
They are not "clearly taught" in the textbook you quoted! There is no mention of any dot spinning. How could you write such blatantly fallacious bullshit? I just don't get it.

As for thermodynamics, you obviously don't understand that either. You would have to be an utterly brain dead moron to believe that scientists are contradicting a fundamental law like that without knowing it, and that you, an utterly ignorant buffoon know better than the scientists who developed the theories of thermodynamics, astrophysics, and all the rest of it. This reveals you SATANIC PRIDE that is so typical of ignorant corrupt creationists who despise the truth. How. Freaking. Pathetic.

You live in LA LA LAND. You are totally freaking insane. Your ignorance is as deep as the ocean.

[L67]

Here is the dictionary definition of science...

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Alright, so to all you evolutionists out there, I have some questions for you, since I am always under attack for my beliefs, its time for you guys to defend yours...if you dare!

This is straight out of a highschool textbook. Classic!
"Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

This is by far the DUMBEST thing I have ever read in my life. I laughed at it back then, and I laugh even still today. You actually believe this? That our infinite universe and all matter started as a microscopic dot??? LOLOLOLOL!!!!:lol:

So here is my first beef. This theory, the big bang, which is the root of your whole belief system, is not "scientific" even by the very definition of Science. It is not testable. It is not observable. Nor does it follow (any of) the general rules of science. (ie: 2nd law of Thermodynamics) So why do you guys call it science???

Where did the dot come from?
What caused it to start spinning?
What caused it to spin faster and faster?
What caused it to explode?
Where did the energy come from?
What force was holding all of that matter and energy inside that teeny, weeny, widdle dot???


Hey Malachi,

I will give you something else to chew on since Richard dismantled your creationist argument. You call the Big Bang a joke but you're missing something. All Christians essentially believe in a big bang. The only difference is you assert a god poofed everything into existence. Where is your evidence that god did it? Oh that's right, you don't have any. By asserting a god did it you haven't advanced the argument one bit.

Also, your objections to the Big Bang theory are ridiculous. You say it's not testable or observable. Is your god observable or testable? Nope. So why do you believe it as fact? Because you have a strong delusion that you are dealing with an omnipotent god.

You think this god created everything? :lol: Judges 1:19 19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Now that is truly LOL worthy.

[L67]

Hey there Malachi,

Are you totally insane, utterly idiotic, or are you just pretending to be both? The quote that you said was "exact" is not exact at all. It doesn't mention any "dot" that began "spinning." Therefore

Quote #1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

Quote #2: Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.

You say that quote #1 is exactly the same as quote #2? :doh:

Therefore, there is no need to answer you question about "spinning" because you have not shown that any scientists have ever said anything about a "spinning dot" in relation to the Big Bang.

And worse - it is utterly moronic for you to think you could refute astrophysics by misquoting a few sentences of a poorly written and entirely inaccurate description in a high school textbook! You have to deal with what the scientists actually have said.

I can't believe how much error and falsehood is contained in your post. You say that Eric Lyons is an astrophysicist? Where did you get that idea? Here is what he says about himself (http://www.apologeticspress.org/el.aspx) (you can find this by clicking on his name on the The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2194)):

Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.

Eric has authored or co-authored a number of books, including The Anvil Rings: Answers to Alleged Bible Discrepancies (Volumes 1 & 2), Behold! The Lamb of God, Truth Be Told, and Wonders of God's Creation. In addition, he writes weekly for the Apologetics Press Web site, is editor of the Explorer Series, and assistant editor of Discovery, the monthly magazine on Scripture and science for children published by Apologetics Press. Eric speaks frequently at youth rallies, Gospel meetings, and seminars around the country, and specializes in presenting seminars on the following topics:
He is a typical ignorant, corrupt, lying, Christian apologist who doesn't give a shit about the truth any more than you do! The crap you have written in this one thread is all the proof anyone needs to know that you despise and mock the truth. You are a perfect example of how your religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of believers. It is simply INSANE to think you could refute the General Theory of Relativity by misquoting a few sentences from a poorly written highschool textbook.


They are not "clearly taught" in the textbook you quoted! There is no mention of any dot spinning. How could you write such blatantly fallacious bullshit? I just don't get it.

As for thermodynamics, you obviously don't understand that either. You would have to be an utterly brain dead moron to believe that scientists are contradicting a fundamental law like that without knowing it, and that you, an utterly ignorant buffoon know better than the scientists who developed the theories of thermodynamics, astrophysics, and all the rest of it. This reveals you SATANIC PRIDE that is so typical of ignorant corrupt creationists who despise the truth. How. Freaking. Pathetic.

You live in LA LA LAND. You are totally freaking insane. Your ignorance is as deep as the ocean.


Bravo Richard! It never gets old seeing another creationist argument get shot down.:thumb: This reminds me of when William Lane Craig tried to explain why Einstein was wrong with his pseudoscience. Truly pathetic.

[David M]

You think this god created everything? :lol: Judges 1:19 19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he (Judah) drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.[/B]

There is nothing to suggest God was doing the driving. Why God did not help Judah to drive out the inhabitants which had the iron chariots is the question that should be asked. It is not that God could not do it, but why it was not expedient for God to help Judah do it? You have to think beyond the obvious and plan the future, which is what God does. His plan, whatever it is and we do not know at this point what it is, shall be accomplished.

Maybe those who believe in God attribute miracles to him which are not necessarily miracles. For example, we are told (Exodus 14:25) And took off their chariot wheels, that they drave them heavily: This seems to suggest from the text the translators think God took off the wheels. The reading of these verses of this episode does not quite make sense. I think there is another explanation in which the original Hebrew text does not lose its meaning. The translators could have written; the wheels of the chariots fell off due to the excessive wear on the chariot. That was very convenient in the purpose of God to cause the Egyptians to travel so far to catch up with the Children of Israel. The wheels started to fall off in great numbers in the place where the Egyptians could be drowned.

Just consider for a moment how far these chariots had come, and the rough terrain over which they had travelled. By the time the chariots got to the crossing of the sea, the wheels were ready to drop off. I expect in their haste, the Egyptians drove the chariots too fast for the condition of the axles at this time, thus causing them to shake themselves to pieces. As with a car, once a wheel bearing starts to show signs of wear and play in the bearing, the bearing soon fails and even sooner the faster you continue to drive.

There is the wisdom of God; to know exactly how long a chariot axle bearing would last and at what point the axle bearing would break. I expect wheels fell off some chariots long before they got to the sea crossing, but as with any man-made product, there is an average life-expectancy and some products last longer and some shorter. The average life-expectancy of the axles and wheels ran out at the sea crossing.


David

[L67]

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he (Judah) drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.[/B]

There is nothing to suggest God was doing the driving. Why God did not help Judah to drive out the inhabitants which had the iron chariots is the question that should be asked. It is not that God could not do it, but why it was not expedient for God to help Judah do it? You have to think beyond the obvious and plan the future, which is what God does. His plan, whatever it is and we do not know at this point what it is, shall be accomplished.

That is not true David. You have made this explanation up. And it doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Even if we say "he" refers to Judah, the Lord was still with Judah and they failed. So either directly or indirectly the Lord was doing the driving. So either God failed on his own or Judah failed with God. The result is the same. It is NOT the work of an omnipotent God. But Psalms tells us the Lord was among the chariots of God.

Psalm 68:17 17 The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of angels: the Lord is among them, as in Sinai, in the holy place.



Numbers says that if the Lord isn't with you then you will be defeated by your enemies.

Numbers 14:42-43 42 Do not go up, because the Lord is not with you. You will be defeated by your enemies, 43 for the Amalekites and the Canaanites will face you there. Because you have turned away from the Lord, he will not be with you and you will fall by the sword.”



And Deuteronomy 20 tells us this about going into battle.

20 When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and seest horses, and chariots, and a people more than thou, be not afraid of them: for the Lord thy God is with thee, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

2 And it shall be, when ye are come nigh unto the battle, that the priest shall approach and speak unto the people,

3 And shall say unto them, Hear, O Israel, ye approach this day unto battle against your enemies: let not your hearts faint, fear not, and do not tremble, neither be ye terrified because of them;

4 For the Lord your God is he that goeth with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you.


The Bible tells us that Judah CANNOT lose if the Lord is with them. And Judges 1:19 tells us the Lord was with Judah and they failed.

I'm sorry, but your explanations don't work here David.

[duxrow]

"When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?" Mt16. Today we can say to them: You're so intent on finding 'problems with Scripture', that you pass right on by the multitude of figurative and spiritual truths. The 2nd Enoch#7 and the 2nd Lamech#9 lead on to the 2nd Jacob#63 ('supplanter' and repeat 'Father of Joseph') in Mt 1:16

Jesus could call on legions of angels, but his power limited somehow.. ?? :sEm_oops:
Matt13:58 And he did not many mighty works there because of their unbelief.
Mark 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

[David M]

Hello L67

That is not true David. You have made this explanation up. And it doesn't work for a couple of reasons. Even if we say "he" refers to Judah, the Lord was still with Judah and they failed. So either directly or indirectly the Lord was doing the driving. It is my explanation, so yes I have reasoned it out myself, in that I have explained why Judah did not drive out the chariots of iron. You miss the point; it could have been in God's purpose that Judah did not drive the chariots of iron out. You have to ask why, but you do not and you would be speculating as to the reason why unless you can find a piece of scripture afterwards that sheds light on that event and what happens in the future to those people who were not defeated at that time or who did not defeat Judah. There is no indication that God was doing the driving in this case, so stop making things up; just as you accuse me of doing.



The Bible tells us that Judah CANNOT lose if the Lord is with them. And Judges 1:19 tells us the Lord was with Judah and they failed.Judah was not defeated in this case. They are neither a winner nor a loser. If God is for a person, and God wants to intervene, then nothing could stop God. Paul was convinced (Rom 8:38); For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. As I have quoted someone else before; "the safest place to be is in the will of God". Therefore, those who believe in God and his only begotten Son have the assurance of the resurrection and of the judgement to come. The judgement should hold no fear to those who love God. It is God's good pleasure to give you the kingdom, but if you want to reject God's offer, you have every right to do so. You will not dissuade me from following the path I am taking.


I'm sorry, but your explanations don't work here David.You are not really sorry. What have you to be sorry about? I am sorry you have put yourself in the position of rejecting God. You will not stop me from believing in God, who has revealed himself in ways which you are blind to and therefore have no faith in God.

You have not won this argument and I have refuted your reply and shown that the conclusion you draw is not necessarily so.

Regards
David

[malachigreenidge]

Hey there Malachi,

Are you totally insane, utterly idiotic, or are you just pretending to be both? The quote that you said was "exact" is not exact at all. It doesn't mention any "dot" that began "spinning."

Quote #1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

Quote #2: Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded.

You say that quote #1 is exactly the same as quote #2? :doh:

Hello Richard. I shall start by APOLOGISING for my lack of clarity in my retort. That is my mistake. However, I did not AT ALL say that the two quotes were "exactly the same." When I wrote, "This is straight out of a highschool textbook," I was referring to the teaching of the spinning dot theory that was in MY highschool textbook. It's not an exact quote, (my apologies for not explaining that) It is paraphrase of my remembrance of what was taught in MY highschool textbook, back in 1990. And I remember it well because the whole idea was utterly obsurd to me (as apparently it is to you), and it lead to MANY lengthy discussions inside and outside of the classroom. And from MY textbook, it was taught that there was a "spinning" dot... etc, etc. Now, I assumed because I was taught this from the curriculum, (I live in Canada by the way, perhaps that should be noted) that it was taught in other curriculums across North America, and the world as well. So it never crossed my mind that you would desire an "exact quote," as I believed it to be a common teaching of the big bang theory. But when you responded with:
"It came from an idiotic page called The Big Bang and the Bible. This was easy to discover. I started by searching for all occurrences of the ludicrous assertion that "This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded". I have degrees in Mathematics and Physics and I've never once seen a textbook. let alone a real scientist, say anything like that. It is moronic. Stupid beyond words. The product of total ignorance. So there is good reason to think it came from a Bible believer,"
I was forced to find a reference, as I no longer have my Grade 10 highschool textbook. The first reference that I instantly found on google (that you apparently couldn't find??) that put forth the "exploding dot" theory was the "quote #2" as you have dubbed it. And in that particular textbook, you're correct, it does not say that the dot was "spinning," nor therefore that the spin "accelerated." And it says "period at the end of the page" instead of "dot."


Therefore, there is no need to answer you question about "spinning" because you have not shown that any scientists have ever said anything about a "spinning dot" in relation to the Big Bang.

--AND--

They are not "clearly taught" in the textbook you quoted! There is no mention of any dot spinning. How could you write such blatantly fallacious bullshit? I just don't get it.

You're right Richard, I do not have a reference to "prove" to you that the textbook(s) taught that the dot was "spinning." But the reference I have given IS from a textbook, and it does in fact put forth the "exploding dot" theory(can we please agree that "dot" and "period at the end of the page" are synonymous?) which states that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny dot, which exploded, thus the big bang. The fact is, whether the dot was spinning or not (like it really matters)...it still begs the question:
1. Where did the dot come from?
2. What caused it to explode?
3. How could all of the matter in the known universe, possibly be contained in such a small space to begin with???

But as I can see that you clearly reject the "exploding dot" theory (wow, we are in total agreement for once, praise God!) the extremely obvious questions still remain:
where did energy come from?
where did matter come from?
what caused the big bang?
how do you possibly get life from non-life?


And worse - it is utterly moronic for you to think you could refute astrophysics by misquoting a few sentences of a poorly written and entirely inaccurate description in a high school textbook! You have to deal with what the scientists actually have said.

Is it my fault the textbooks have misinformation in them??? Do not evolutionists and scientists contribute to what goes into these "science" textbooks? I can assure you creationists don't. So if its not (evolutionary) scientists putting this information in the textbooks, then who is it? If this is not what (evolutionary) scientists have "acutally said," then why is it in the textbooks? Now its been 20 years since I've grazed the hallways and classrooms of my highschool, but if I remember correctly, I was taught to believe that it was the study and findings of "scientists" that went into my "science" textbooks. No?


I can't believe how much error and falsehood is contained in your post. You say that Eric Lyons is an astrophysicist? Where did you get that idea? Here is what he says about himself (http://www.apologeticspress.org/el.aspx) (you can find this by clicking on his name on the The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist (http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2194)):[INDENT]Eric Lyons is a graduate of Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.S. with a double major in Bible and history, and an M.Min. Eric, his wife Jana, and their three children (Bo, Micah, and Shelby) live and worship in Wetumpka, Alabama, where Eric works with the youth of the Wetumpka church of Christ. Eric currently serves as a member of the Bible Department at Apologetics Press, where he has worked for the past 12 years.

For those reading, Richard here is referring to my quote:
"Here is also a post from an article titled "The Big Fizzle: Admissions from an Evolutionary Astrophysicist"(2007)written by astro-physicist Eric Lyons, referencing the exact same textbook!"

My apologies Richard, this mistake is a TOTAL mis-type on my part. I did not at all intend to insert that Eric Lyons was an astrophysicist. He is not. And I know (and knew) that. It should have just read, "written by Eric Lyons." I referenced the article, because Eric gives further evidence that the "exploding dot" theory is not only just taught in highschool textbooks, but that it is still held and taught by influencial evolutionists, or at least by Peter Coles, (professor of Theoretical Astrophysics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at Cardiff University) who wrote an article titled "Boomtime" for the March 3rd, 2007 "New Scientist" magazine. In that article, Peter Coles explains his belief in the "instant inflation" of the universe (blah, blah, blah) right after the big bang, stating: "Without it the universe would still fit on a pinhead, yet this crucial event remains an enigma." (New Scientist, Volume 193, Issue 2593, 3 March 2007, Pages 33-37)

A "dot", a "period at the end of a page," a "pinhead" -all synonymous references to what evolutionists believe to be the size of the universe prior to the big bang. Peter Coles is a well known and highly respected scientist in the field of evolution today. So don't tell me its not taught, because it is. Are you seriously denying the fact that evolutionists have put forth the theory that all the matter in the universe was once condensed into a tiny little ball, that went bang???

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hello Richard. I shall start by APOLOGISING for my lack of clarity in my retort. That is my mistake.

Apology accepted! I respect people who admit mistakes. :thumb:



You're right Richard, I do not have a reference to "prove" to you that the textbook(s) taught that the dot was "spinning." But the reference I have given IS from a textbook, and it does in fact put forth the "exploding dot" theory(can we please agree that "dot" and "period at the end of the page" are synonymous?) which states that all the matter in the universe was condensed into a tiny dot, which exploded, thus the big bang. The fact is, whether the dot was spinning or not (like it really matters)...it still begs the question:
1. Where did the dot come from?
2. What caused it to explode?
3. How could all of the matter in the known universe, possibly be contained in such a small space to begin with???

The "dot" did not "explode". Space expanded.

If you want to challenge the science of astrophysics, you need to quote what the theory actually states.

Let's begin:

1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.

2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

1004

These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.

These are some of the facts that have led astrophysicists to conclude that the universe began in a singularity that expanded, called the "Big Bang". If you want to challenge this theory, you need to challenge the facts that support it.

All the best,

Richard

[malachigreenidge]

The "dot" did not "explode". Space expanded.

Wow, you're really splitting hairs here with the terminology Richard, and avoiding the question at hand. It amazes me that you still neglect to answer ANY of my questions, yet you proceed to ask questions of me. You have not answered a SINGLE question I have asked. How is that a discussion?
The fact is, in the alleged big bang theory, space "expanded" faster than any "explosion" man has ever measured here on earth. So I'm going to assume the "science textbook" used this term to create a mental picture for its students, so they could fathom the idea of the rate of that expansion. Probably the same reason why the textbook used the term "dot" to describe the alleged size of the universe too. Because the reality is that evolutionists actually believe the universe was a"sub-atomic sized dense point" to start, which is actually smaller than a "dot, like the period at the end of this page," now isn't it?
And was that sub-atomic sized dense matter spinning? Well, yes it was according to some evolutionists.

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning

So Like I said before, if its bad science, (which it is) its not my science. Its in the textbooks, and "science" magazines, written by "scientists," which I have proven here, and in my previous posts.
But REGARDLESS of whether you call it "explosion" or "expansion," you STILL have not answered my question. So let me spell it out for you again, in a language that hopefully satisfies you

1. Where did that singularity come from? Why or what caused it to be there in the first place?
2. What caused space to expand? (formerly, what caused the dot to explode?)
3. Where did the energy come from to cause that "sub-atomic sized ball of mass" to expand "faster than the speed of light"???

WILL RICHARD ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS THIS TIME?
We shall see! Either way, I will still answer his questions.


1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.

No I do not challenge this. Whether it is still expanding or not, has no bearing on how the universe started.


2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

1004

Again, no, I don't challenge this either.


These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.
I'm not contending about the expansion of the universe, I'm contending about its conception. I believe the universe and all that is in it was the purposeful planning and work of a loving Creator, who is God. You believe it was the random, chance happening of the big bang, with no creative power or person behind it. Both theories require expansion, because both theories contend that there was less than there is now.


These are some of the facts that have led astrophysicists to conclude that the universe began in a singularity that expanded, called the "Big Bang". If you want to challenge this theory, you need to challenge the facts that support it.(emphasis mine)

Singularity? - "The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly explode in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe."
Wall, Mike (21 October 2011). "The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth?". The History & Future of the Cosmos. Space.com. Retrieved April 16, 2012.

Notice how Mr. Mike Wall said "explode" instead of "expand?" You might want to send him an email to correct him on that Richard, like you did me. But I find it uncanny how his definition sounds synonomous to my original postings (which you beraded me for by saying, and I quote: "how could you write such blatantly fallicious bullshit"). The only difference is that the highschool textbooks dumbed down the terminology for the average North American 15 year old mind. The concepts are the exact same though. Here they are again for your comparison

Quote (paraphrase)#1: "Somewhere between 18 and 20 billion years ago, all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny space no larger than the period (dot) at the end of the this sentence. This dot spun faster and faster until it exploded, thus creating the Universe and everything in it."

Quote #2: "Most astronomers believe that about 18 to 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot region that may have been much smaller than a period on this page. For some unknown reason, this region exploded."

"The initial singularity was the gravitational singularity of infinite density (dot OR period on this page) thought to have contained all of the mass and spacetime of the Universe before quantum fluctuations (spinning)caused it to rapidly explode (ummm..expand?) in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe."
- Mike Wall, PHd. Evolutionary Biology, Senior writer of Space.com

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Wow, you're really splitting hairs here with the terminology Richard,
Good morning Malachi,

Precision with language is the primary prerequisite for clear thinking. It is the principal sign of a principled mind. It is essential for any meaningful discussion of science and philosophy. I agree with Voltaire, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."



and avoiding the question at hand. It amazes me that you still neglect to answer ANY of my questions, yet you proceed to ask questions of me. You have not answered a SINGLE question I have asked. How is that a discussion?

I am not avoiding answering your questions. I was just establishing a necessary foundation for meaningful discourse. I needed to know if you were rejecting the two fundamental scientific facts from which the theory of the Big Bang is derived, namely:

1) The expansion of the universe.

2) Einstein's Field Equations.

And now that you have indicated that you do not challenge the scientific foundation of the Big Bang, your title of this thread is exposed as absurd. You said that the theory was "not science" and now you say that you agree with the science that supports it. Your thinking appears to be grossly confused and inconsistent.



The fact is, in the alleged big bang theory, space "expanded" faster than any "explosion" man has ever measured here on earth. So I'm going to assume the "science textbook" used this term to create a mental picture for its students, so they could fathom the idea of the rate of that expansion. Probably the same reason why the textbook used the term "dot" to describe the alleged size of the universe too. Because the reality is that evolutionists actually believe the universe was a"sub-atomic sized dense point" to start, which is actually smaller than a "dot, like the period at the end of this page," now isn't it?
And was that sub-atomic sized dense matter spinning? Well, yes it was according to some evolutionists.

"The universe was born spinning and continues to do so around a preferred axis – that is the bold conclusion of physicists in the US who have studied the rotation of more than 15,000 galaxies." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/25/was-the-universe-born-spinning

So Like I said before, if its bad science, (which it is) its not my science. Its in the textbooks, and "science" magazines, written by "scientists," which I have proven here, and in my previous posts.
But REGARDLESS of whether you call it "explosion" or "expansion," you STILL have not answered my question. So let me spell it out for you again, in a language that hopefully satisfies you

1. Where did that singularity come from? Why or what caused it to be there in the first place?
2. What caused space to expand? (formerly, what caused the dot to explode?)
3. Where did the energy come from to cause that "sub-atomic sized ball of mass" to expand "faster than the speed of light"???

WILL RICHARD ACTUALLY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS THIS TIME?
We shall see! Either way, I will still answer his questions.

Now you are repeating your rejection of the science that you said you do not reject. Your thinking is grossly confused and inconsistent.

Also, you seem very confused about the relevance of the analogical language used in high school text books. Such language is utterly irrelevant to any serious, mature, informed discussion of science. The analogies are not sufficiently accurate to be used as an argument against the actual science. If you want to challenge the real science, you need to fully engage the real science, which means you need to understand that the concept of the singularity logically follows from the evidence of 1) the expansion and 2) Einstein's Field Equations. You have not challenged the evidence that implies the singularity, so it is absurd for you to challenge the singularity. Now in answer to your questions:

1) No one knows where the singularity came from, but that's totally irrelevant as to whether there was one or not. The fact that science cannot tell us where atoms "come from" says absolutely nothing about the validity of atomic theory! Your question is nothing but typical creationist rhetoric void of any meaning.

2) I've already answered this question.

3) No one knows where anything "came from" and you can't legitimately argue for your god from such ignorance.




1) Do you challenge the fact that the universe is expanding? This is one of the most firmly established facts of science.

No I do not challenge this. Whether it is still expanding or not, has no bearing on how the universe started.


2) Do you challenge Einstein's Field Equations of General Relativity? Here they are:

1004

Again, no, I don't challenge this either.


These equations have been confirmed by many experiments. They explain why the universe is expanding.
I'm not contending about the expansion of the universe, I'm contending about its conception. I believe the universe and all that is in it was the purposeful planning and work of a loving Creator, who is God. You believe it was the random, chance happening of the big bang, with no creative power or person behind it. Both theories require expansion, because both theories contend that there was less than there is now.

You have explicitly agreed with the scientific foundation of the Theory of the Big Bang. The existence of the initial singularity follows from those scientific facts. Indeed, it has been mathematically proven by the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem. Therefore, your primary assertion that it is "not science" is demonstrably false and directly contrary to your own words.

Great chatting! :yo:

Richard

[David M]

Is the Big Bang totally a joke, or can the Big Bang be an explanation for the existence of God?

I recently watched the following video on Youtube; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS1x-6al2pE

The video is around 12 months old. I stumbled on it without intentionally looking for videos on the subject. The video is 1 hour 58 minutes long. The start of the video mentions the Big Bang. The Big Bang can explain the origin of matter; not spontaneously without intelligence, but due to intelligence.

This is one of the pieces of evidence put forward for the existence of God.

The intelligent design argument to support the existence of God, co0ntinues to be hotly debated. The video explains how there has to be a cause for anything to happen. The cause eventually has to be credited to God, the intelligence behind the Universe.


David

[rdelmonico]

God's responsibility:
Does God have a responsibility to prove himself?
Is there some reason why it is not clear to everyone exactly what is going on?
If it were clear, there would be no need to debate.
One could argue that God has already done that, But if people still don't get it then the job has not been completed.
One could argue that free will would be some how violated if God made everything clear enough that we could understand what is going on.
What is my responsibility?

[David M]

God's responsibility:
Does God have a responsibility to prove himself?
Is there some reason why it is not clear to everyone exactly what is going on?
If it were clear, there would be no need to debate.
One could argue that God has already done that, But if people still don't get it then the job has not been completed.
One could argue that free will would be some how violated if God made everything clear enough that we could understand what is going on.
What is my responsibility?

Hello Rick

You make a good point. The responsibility is mine to understand God's word. God's responsibility has been discharged. God has revealed his intention. God's plan and purpose has been revealed.

What makes God's plan less clear, is if we listen to other people who are deliberately muddying the waters. Some people are outright deceivers. Some people are into religion for the money to be made from it. With so much corruption in some churches that has been exposed, we wonder why anyone would continue to attend a similar church. Are people like sheep being led astray? People are like sheep and easily lead. Some people are lead by their own thoughts and those thoughts lead other people to follow. Our focus is to be on the word of God and let God's word lead us. Jesus was a lamb and was also the shepherd. Does that sound like a paradox, or can that easily be explained?

We are to follow Jesus. Peter had his own thoughts about Jesus not dying and so Jesus put Peter in his place and said; "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. It is men's ideas which are causing a lot of confusion. It would be better to say; "I do not understand .." and have no opinion, than to come up with false ideas that get promulgated.

This reply should not be in this thread, since this debate should form part of a more appropriate thread dealing with the topic. Man's reasoning alone is prone failure; Eve demonstrated that from the beginning and in 6,000 years, that has not changed. God makes his judgement. God is consistent in all his ways. God is righteous. It is the failure of man to see that. It is man who is unrighteous and makes himself imperfect. God uses the imperfect to prove to those who will have spiritual eyes to see, that God is in control and has a plan to save those who are acceptable to him. Those not acceptable to him, can remain acceptable to the world. That is the world we are told not to be part of and to be separate from. The question we should ask of ourselves is this; Who do I identify with?

Those who want to remain blind to God's message will do so. The Bible tells us that they are "willing ignorant". There is no changing anyone who is "willing ignorant". It is the same as their heart is sufficiently hardened, that their heart will not soften and they will not to listen and hear the word of God speaking to them. That accounts for why there is so much evil and wickedness in the world and it is man's fault.


All the best
David

[duxrow]

Hello Rick
This reply should not be in this thread, since this debate should form part of a more appropriate thread dealing with the topic.
Man's reasoning alone is prone failure; Eve demonstrated that from the beginning and in 6,000 years, that has not changed.

Those who want to remain blind to God's message will do so. .

Eve demonstrated that [failure] from the beginning??.
Caught my eye, David, how you insist on blaming Eve despite evidence of Adam's treachery and iniquity (Hos6:7 and Job31:33).
We have a 2nd Adam, so why not a "2nd Eve" ? hah Though it isn't a complete white-wash, because of the Jezebel's still to be found.. :eek:

[David M]

Hello Dux


Eve demonstrated that [failure] from the beginning??.
Caught my eye, David, how you insist on blaming Eve despite evidence of Adam's treachery and iniquity (Hos6:7 and Job31:33).

Eve was the one who was deceived. She was the one who ate first.

The Genesis record does not say Adam deceived Eve, and I have not found support from anywhere else in scripture to confirm Adam did what you say.

Hosea 6:7 sounds like a general reference to men (inclusive of women). That is what I usually mean in general terms when I speak of "man" or "men"; that includes women.

Re Job 31:33 Do you think Adam was responsible for making Eve hide with him? Do you think Eve would have hidden herself, had it not been for Adam hiding first?

Adam's fall was greater. He was rebuked by God for; "hearkening unto thy wife" Adam followed Eve's lead. Adam did not stop to reason.


We have a 2nd Adam, so why not a "2nd Eve" ? hah Though it isn't a complete white-wash, because of the Jezebel's still to be found.. :eek:
We have the new man. We have the perfect man. We have the righteous man. These are all seen in the man; Jesus. That is what makes Jesus unique in being the only begotten Son of God; no daughter to fill the role of the perfect human.

The righteous man (including woman) is the person God wants to dwell with in his Kingdom. Christ is already there in the presence of God, having gone through the transformation process. The harvest of believers and followers, making up the righteous, will follow at the resurrection.

That is how I see it.

All the best
David

[duxrow]

HELP, Richard, or anyone.. - Do you remember? The two words 'deceived' in 1Tim2:14, I learned were apatao and exapatao (greatly deceived). Now searching Blue Letter Bible doesn't confirm, and I'm beginning to think some earlier Bible references have been dropped since the NIV times. To me, at the time, it seemed that Eve was deceived by BOTH the serpent and her husband. :huhsign:

Similar to the way Christian phrases are no longer to be found in modern dictionaries. :eek:

[duxrow]

Hello Dux
Eve was the one who was deceived. She was the one who ate first.Found it! NASB uses G1818 'exapatao' for Eve, and G538 apatao for Adam.
Hosea6:7 But like [fn]Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
Job31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom". So even the Bible speaks of 'closet believers'.. you think?
Both "deceived", according to 1Tim2:14.. Not sure what 'eating first' has to do with it.


The Genesis record does not say Adam deceived Eve, and I have not found support from anywhere else in scripture to confirm Adam did what you say. Like so many hidden things in scripture, with answers coming later. So how did Noah tell the difference between the clean and unclean animals?


Hosea 6:7 sounds like a general reference to men (inclusive of women). That is what I usually mean in general terms when I speak of "man" or "men"; that includes women. Roger that, used to think that too, but our Holy Ghostwriter uses those to His advantage and OUR seeking.


Re Job 31:33 Do you think Adam was responsible for making Eve hide with him? Do you think Eve would have hidden herself, had it not been for Adam hiding first? The HIDING is one of the great overlooked themes, IMO naturally. :winking0071:


Adam's fall was greater. He was rebuked by God for; "hearkening unto thy wife" Adam followed Eve's lead. Adam did not stop to reason. Sure.. He'd gotten the instructions right from the horses mouth, but chose to follow Eve; like mankind follows their peers rather than the 66 Books. :winking0071:

[David M]

Hello Dux


Found it! NASB uses G1818 'exapatao' for Eve, and G538 apatao for Adam.
Hosea6:7 But like [fn]Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
Job31:33 If I covered my transgressions as Adam, by hiding mine iniquity in my bosom". So even the Bible speaks of 'closet believers'.. you think?
Both "deceived", according to 1Tim2:14.. Not sure what 'eating first' has to do with it.The first to eat, was the first to commit the sin. Thinking first about eating the forbidden fruit might not come into this. Adam had time to think about it before Eve was created. The two trees in the midst of the garden were planted there before Adam was placed in the garden. That gives us a clue to say that the two trees were placed there for a reason ahead of Adam being put in the garden and put to the test.
Adam was told to dress all the trees in the garden. There does not appear to be an instruction to Adam not to touch the tree; only do not eat of it. However, Eve tells the serpent she is not to touch the tree lest she die. The same consequence as easting of the tree. Where did Eve get the instruction not to touch the tree when it is apparent Adam was not told not to touch the tree?


Like so many hidden things in scripture, with answers coming later.That is true. Understanding the Book of Job correctly and what The Satan is, helps us to see Serpent in the garden in the same light. The story of Job does not come as late in history as order in the Bible would suggest. The time period of Job is thought to be at the time of the Children of Israel wandering in the wilderness. Hence, the Book of Job could be placed before the Book of the Judges, if the books were listed in chronological order.


So how did Noah tell the difference between the clean and unclean animals?That is an interesting question and the subject of a new thread I suggest. How many kinds of clean and unclean animals would there have been? Even keeping unclean animals serves a purpose. Maybe there is an allegory here as to why God allows sin to continue.


Roger that, used to think that too, but our Holy Ghostwriter uses those to His advantage and OUR seeking.I am all for seeing as many connections as possible to get as many lessons as possible. I not the plural "men" is used denoting multiple Adams in that case.


The HIDING is one of the great overlooked themes, IMO naturally. :winking0071:Goes to show there is no hiding place. Only God can search men's hearts and nothing can be hid there. Another small detail is; God does not call to Eve. It was with Adam the test was first given and it was not until Eve was created that Adam had an excuse.


Sure.. He'd gotten the instructions right from the horses mouth, but chose to follow Eve; like mankind follows their peers rather than the 66 Books.I agree.

All the best
David

[duxrow]

OK David, imagine Eve 'wakes' and Adam takes charge.
Tells her about GOD prohibits eating from the Tree of Smarts (intends to mention the Tree of Jesus, but it slips his mind.) :dizzy:
IMMEDIATELY she gets interested in the Tree of Smarts, and watches it intently, looking for some reason she should abstain. This worries Adam, so to be on the safe side he warns her not to even touch the tree--that it might kill her. Like maybe it's wired or something--chances are they don't have much experience using the Hebrew language..
Then after she chomps down on the "forbidden fruit", he plays it safe by waiting 24 hrs., in case she might really die on Day One.:winking0071:
No, I don't really think it happened that way, but the Author has given us a marvelous scenario that permits different points of view. Right? :thumb:

[David M]

OK David, imagine Eve 'wakes' and Adam takes charge.
Tells her about GOD prohibits eating from the Tree of Smarts (intends to mention the Tree of Jesus, but it slips his mind.) :dizzy:
IMMEDIATELY she gets interested in the Tree of Smarts, and watches it intently, looking for some reason she should abstain. This worries Adam, so to be on the safe side he warns her not to even touch the tree--that it might kill her. Like maybe it's wired or something--chances are they don't have much experience using the Hebrew language..
Then after she chomps down on the "forbidden fruit", he plays it safe by waiting 24 hrs., in case she might really die on Day One.:winking0071:
No, I don't really think it happened that way, but the Author has given us a marvelous scenario that permits different points of view. Right? :thumb:
Hello Dux
We were not there and so we have to rely on what we are told by someone who was there to witness what happened. The only one who was there is God and we have his inspired word written down. We have to make the best judgement based on the economical use of words. It leaves scope to fill in the details we think might have took place. Unless we have scriptural support from later scripture to help us come up with a consistent message, then we have the liberty to think what might have happened. In that case, as long as there is not scriptural evidence opposing our ideas, then all ideas we can say are acceptable and do not radically change the story.

A point to come out of this story of A & E (not an accident or emergency), one of the principles to come out of this, is that Adam being created first, was given the responsibility to instruct Eve and do what was in her best interest. Adam failed as the head of this two-person household. The principle continues from there that the man is the head of the household and therefore the woman is not to usurp the authority of her husband or to teach, in the sense that Adam was expected to teach Eve. This does not mean the woman is any less intelligent than the man, it is the order of things as determined by the Creator. We accept Christ as the head of the assembly etc.

Following 1 Tim 2:13 in which Eve is mentioned, soon after in 1 Tim 3:2 we read; A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, ..,
I think we can say the man (not woman in this case) in general has been put in the office of Bishop. He has the responsibility to teach. This is why even though women can be intellectually better than a man, a woman must not usurp the authority of her husband. This is the divine principle laid down from the beginning.

Adam as the Bishop, failed to be vigilant. He did not keep an eye on his wife and check to see what she was doing. We know the temptation of Eve took place when Adam was not present. In this drama, there is no conversation between the Serpent and Adam. Apart from the Serpent reportedly speaking to Eve, the Serpent is silent. In the drama, we have conversations between God and Adam, God and Eve, and Adam and Eve. I see this drama in a similar way to how the Book of Job is written. That is why I see the Serpent in the Garden as being the same as The Satan in the Book of Job. The Satan was in the life of both Eve and Job, as it is in all of us. Even Jesus had to overcome the Satan that was in him. Until Jesus overcame the Satan (human pride) and received his immortal body, that is why Jesus did not regard himself as good (perfect). That statement could only be said of his Heavenly Father, thus Jesus never claimed equality with God. Also in the sense that Jesus had not learnt complete obedience until he had overcome all temptation, (hence Heb 5:8); Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;. That is another reason why I believe Jesus could not have been God, for Jesus was in the position of being made perfect. We are to be like Jesus, and though we fail, we shall be made perfect when by the grace of God, immortality is bestowed on us. In the meantime, we learn to be obedient by the things we have to suffer in this life. Jesus did not say we were going to have an easy life.

It is good to be reminded of all these things as we wait for the day when all truth will be revealed. I expect we shall be kicking ourselves for the times we we failed to spot something that should have been obvious.

All the best
David

[rdelmonico]

Has anyone seen this?
Please comment.http://www.sonoma.edu/users/v/vegalu/eschatology_files/Tribulation.pdf

[duxrow]

Hello Dux
We were not there.. In that case, as long as there is not scriptural evidence opposing our ideas, then all ideas we can say are acceptable and do not radically change the story.
In the meantime, we learn to be obedient by the things we have to suffer in this life. Jesus did not say we were going to have an easy life.
All the best David
:chores015:Roger the inspiration, David, yet you apparently aren't including Job31:33 and Hos6:7 which tells me that Adam was something of a scoundrel or scalawag. Eve having babies by him, so 1Tim2:15 may also apply.. You think? :arghh:

[duxrow]

Has anyone seen this?
Please comment.http://www.sonoma.edu/users/v/vegalu/eschatology_files/Tribulation.pdf
Sonoma.edu was interesting, Rick, but don't agree about 3rd Temple (for more sacrifices) since Jesus was fulfillment of them.. The 66th year from '48 is maybe more apropos IMO. I agree that "mazzaroth" and Zodiac points to Christ, but am not versed well enough to make sense of ecliptics.
http://cswnet.com/~duxrow/zodiac.htm

[rdelmonico]

If there is a pattern here that can be proven to be significant, then I think we should try to find out out how this stuff all ties together.
I heard that 5776 (the year of light) was connected to 1776 because of the creation in 4000 B.C. theory.
I also heard that the great pyramid had 5776 encoded into it's measurements, and is some kind of a calendar.
By the way I read somewhere one explanation, Eve added to the word of God. Adam knowingly chose to join Eve in her predicament and the fig leaves were a model or type of man's religion. God clothed then with animal skins to show that it was by the shedding of innocent blood that they would be saved from their dilemma.
This blood being poured out is interesting to me. Do you suppose there could be something like order being poured out into chaos going on here? I have no idea myself, but if this is true, Jesus died once for all, is this some kind of a repair for all of creation? Something about the blood of Christ that has a tangible effect on everything?

[duxrow]

If there is a pattern here that can be proven to be significant, then I think we should try to find out out how this stuff all ties together.
I heard that 5776 (the year of light) was connected to 1776 because of the creation in 4000 B.C. theory.

Have you seen this one? 3 dispensations followed by a thousand years.. (millennium to come).

1039

[rdelmonico]

Adam before the fall, Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Jesus, Church age, Millennium.

[duxrow]

No problem, the seven (7) looks good to me. So then what? :thumb:

[duxrow]

Adam before the fall, Adam to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Jesus, Church age, Millennium.

Maybe the count doesn't always start with Adam?

1041

[willandtonya]

I have read through this thread, and I'm curious to understand, if I am wired for self preservation, why do good? Why would I die for those whom I love? It doesn't benefit me, and ultimately them either. With United States for an example, how to we come to pen the Bill of Rights? How do we define liberty? Is everyones definition the same? If I have the right to happiness and it impedes on another's happiness, who is deserving of happiness? The reason I ask this is because I believe as human beings, we have the amazing ability of logic and reason that leads us to question any certain subject and determine its conclusion.

The reality is that both opinions can be viewed as "theoretical" because we cannot see this creation observably happening, as science requires. So that leaves us to come to a conclusion that is logical, for our ultimate desire is not to know how, but why. Why is there a creation and is there any purpose for it or us. Logic only leads to one, common sense answer. Our life has purpose, if indeed we love, hate, forgive, don't forgive, have compassion, show mercy etc., because these things exist for no reason without purpose. If, seeing there can be no other deduction, evolution is true, none of these things have any purpose, for our life only exists to procreate and die as we evolve, with the concept of hope being totally void and illogical.

If we look to science as the answer for every question, we will fall far short of ever knowing the things that are important, why and what for, or are these irrelevant.

Shalom to all

[Rose]

I have read through this thread, and I'm curious to understand, if I am wired for self preservation, why do good? Why would I die for those whom I love? It doesn't benefit me, and ultimately them either. With United States for an example, how to we come to pen the Bill of Rights? How do we define liberty? Is everyones definition the same? If I have the right to happiness and it impedes on another's happiness, who is deserving of happiness? The reason I ask this is because I believe as human beings, we have the amazing ability of logic and reason that leads us to question any certain subject and determine its conclusion.

The reality is that both opinions can be viewed as "theoretical" because we cannot see this creation observably happening, as science requires. So that leaves us to come to a conclusion that is logical, for our ultimate desire is not to know how, but why. Why is there a creation and is there any purpose for it or us. Logic only leads to one, common sense answer. Our life has purpose, if indeed we love, hate, forgive, don't forgive, have compassion, show mercy etc., because these things exist for no reason without purpose. If, seeing there can be no other deduction, evolution is true, none of these things have any purpose, for our life only exists to procreate and die as we evolve, with the concept of hope being totally void and illogical.

If we look to science as the answer for every question, we will fall far short of ever knowing the things that are important, why and what for, or are these irrelevant.

Shalom to all

Hi Willandtonya, welcome to the Forum :welcome: So glad you stopped by to chat ...

If one understands the true meaning of equal human rights for all, there in no question of one persons happiness impeding on the happiness of another. All people are equally human and as such are entitled to the same rights as all other people. Making the world a better place for all people to achieve their full potential is what adds meaning and purpose to our lives ... this is not something anyone else can give you, rather it is what each person must give to their own life.

What's important is that we exist, not the method that we got here. The creationist just like the evolutionist must in and of themselves give purpose and meaning to their own lives, and that is done by the manner in which you live.

Kind regards,
Rose

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I have read through this thread, and I'm curious to understand, if I am wired for self preservation, why do good? Why would I die for those whom I love?
Because you love them! Isn't that obvious? What other reason could there be? Some cold calculation based on the calculus of abstract theology?

Are you suggesting that if God created you, you would not be "wired for self-preservation?" What does that have to do with anything? It is true under either theism or atheism.

Richard

PS:

Welcome to our forum!

:welcome: