On The Reliability of The Old Testament

[Viktor]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

 

[alang1216]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

 

[ding]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

 

[alang1216]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

 

[ding]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

 

[alang1216]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

 

[ding]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

Created. Yes. I do know. The SLoT precludes an infinite acting universe without thermal equilibrium. You should ask yourself why that makes you so uncomfortable.

Apparently those Bronze Age nomads knew more than you do.

The Bible and logic say that God is eternal. If the Bible said the universe were eternal going backwards, it would be wrong. Does that answer your question?

 

[ding]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

 

[ding]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

Additionally, if the universe were not created then what was responsible for the cosmic background radiation?

You see... the only way we can get that kind of radiation is when particles and anti-particles annihilate themselves like what happened when the universe was created from nothing.

 

[luchitociencia]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

I don't use Google.

I won't open a Google link.

I don't support Google groups.

Be a better host, and copy and paste what your point of discussion is about.

 

[Votto]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

 

[alang1216]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

Additionally, if the universe were not created then what was responsible for the cosmic background radiation?

You see... the only way we can get that kind of radiation is when particles and anti-particles annihilate themselves like what happened when the universe was created from nothing.

I don't know, I wasn't there, but I'll gladly admit you and your Bible have 50-50 chance of being correct.

 

[alang1216]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

 

[ding]

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

More than 6,000 years ago ancient man believed the universe began. And they passed this belief down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before it was recorded in writing.

It has been my experience that when people include the word honestly in their sentences they usually aren't.

The question wasn't who created existence. The question is did the OT get the universe beginning correct. I say it did.

Was the universe created or does is just change shape like an ocean wave, eternally flipping inside out? I don't know and I don't think you do either, and I'm sure those Bronze Age nomads didn't know. If the Bible said both God and the universe were eternal would you still believe it was created?

Additionally, if the universe were not created then what was responsible for the cosmic background radiation?

You see... the only way we can get that kind of radiation is when particles and anti-particles annihilate themselves like what happened when the universe was created from nothing.

I don't know, I wasn't there, but I'll gladly admit you and your Bible have 50-50 chance of being correct.

You are some kind of scientifically enlightened male.

Why is it that atheists like yourself profess to love science until it doesn't suit their purpose? Then they shit all over it.

 

[ding]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

Coin toss, huh?

They also correctly predicted that what they saw was the result of a process over time and that man arose from that creation.

That's pretty good considering that 6,000 years later you still deny the universe began.

 

[alang1216]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

Coin toss, huh?

They also correctly predicted that what they saw was the result of a process over time and that man arose from that creation.

That's pretty good considering that 6,000 years later you still deny the universe began.

Our universe obviously began at some point, what I don't know is what existed before that?

They didn't correctly predict that man arose from creation, man wrote it. You don't seem to think the fact that they got just about everything wrong about the how of creation is important.

 

[ding]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

Coin toss, huh?

They also correctly predicted that what they saw was the result of a process over time and that man arose from that creation.

That's pretty good considering that 6,000 years later you still deny the universe began.

Our universe obviously began at some point, what I don't know is what existed before that?

They didn't correctly predict that man arose from creation, man wrote it. You don't seem to think the fact that they got just about everything wrong about the how of creation is important.

Mind existed before it.

Man was made from dust.

According to you they got everything wrong but you read it like a six year old would. Among other things Genesis tells us...

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation

But you are not intelligent enough to understand it.

 

[alang1216]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

Coin toss, huh?

They also correctly predicted that what they saw was the result of a process over time and that man arose from that creation.

That's pretty good considering that 6,000 years later you still deny the universe began.

Our universe obviously began at some point, what I don't know is what existed before that?

They didn't correctly predict that man arose from creation, man wrote it. You don't seem to think the fact that they got just about everything wrong about the how of creation is important.

Mind existed before it.

Man was made from dust.

According to you they got everything wrong but you read it like a six year old would. Among other things Genesis tells us...

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation

But you are not intelligent enough to understand it.

Concerning 1 - 8, which of those can be independently verified by science? To assess the reliability of the OT we'd need to have another source that agrees with the OT, wouldn't we? Let's see that superior intelligence at work.

 

[ding]

Google Groups

The evidence mounts.

The OT is theology, myth, and legend. The legends may arise from historical events but they are still legends. If you require your scripture to be historically or scientifically accurate you are wildly missing the point.

If this world was created by God, why do believers try to tell God how he works when they can see how He works for themselves. If God created man by evolution and not by some supernatural method, who are they to tell him he did it wrong?

So the belief that the universe began is scientifically incorrect?

I honestly don't know. If it did begin, I see no evidence the OT God created it.

Sure there is evidence. God said he created the universe. In other words, the universe had a beginning. Science has since come to the same conclusion regarding the Big Bang.

Before this, which was not that long ago in the 1950's, scientists used to think that the universe was eternal.

OK, God called that coin toss correctly, maybe, but lots of what He said (e.g., the sequence and time period of creation) does not mesh with science. You cherry-pick one instance and ignore the others.

Coin toss, huh?

They also correctly predicted that what they saw was the result of a process over time and that man arose from that creation.

That's pretty good considering that 6,000 years later you still deny the universe began.

Our universe obviously began at some point, what I don't know is what existed before that?

They didn't correctly predict that man arose from creation, man wrote it. You don't seem to think the fact that they got just about everything wrong about the how of creation is important.

Mind existed before it.

Man was made from dust.

According to you they got everything wrong but you read it like a six year old would. Among other things Genesis tells us...

1. God created existence
2. Everything he created is good
3. What he created was done in steps
4. Man is a product of that creation
5. Man is unlike any other creature in creation
6. Man is made in God’s image in that he is a being which knows and creates
7. Man was told to go forth and be fruitful
8. Man was told to do as the original creator; to create for 6 days and then rest
9. Man knows right from wrong
10. Rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong when man does wrong, he rationalizes he didn’t do wrong
11. Successful behaviors naturally lead to success
12. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure
13. Pass it down to the next generation

But you are not intelligent enough to understand it.

Concerning 1 - 8, which of those can be independently verified by science? To assess the reliability of the OT we'd need to have another source that agrees with the OT, wouldn't we? Let's see that superior intelligence at work.

All of them?

Assess the reliability of Genesis? Are you kidding? The question is your idiotic interpretation of allegorical accounts that were passed down orally from generation to generation for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. These accounts were how important information was passed down in ancient times. Just as the Chinese used well known history and everyday things as symbols in their written language to make words easier to remember, ancient man used stories to pass down historical events and important knowledge to future generations. Interspersed in these allegorical accounts of history are wisdoms that they deemed important enough to pass down and remember. Such as man knows right from wrong and when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he didn't do wrong.

Could New Scientific Discovery Support Creation?

An experiment at the South Pole called BICEP2, carried out by a team of astronomers led by John Kovac of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has uncovered

www.breakingisraelnews.com

My claim isn't that I have superior intellect. It is that you have inferior intellect.